of these Places now cited May be as Protestants understand The bare Saying of Sectaries stand's for no proof so I say The contradictory Proposition is every whit as good The Sense May be as Catholicks understand Who must Therfore whilst we are Both yet supposed to stand as it were on equal Terms Determine what God hath absolutely Revealed in these Scriptures I say absolutely For the question here is not what a Particular man may Imagin God to have Spoken But what He hath de facto Spoken The Reason hereof is clear Because God Speak's not in so weighty a Matter as this is to Try mens Wits or to Hear Them tell him Lord such may be the Sense of your words Faith relies not on what private men think God hath revealed Though I cannot say what it is Nor can our Faith Rely on what we only Think He may have Spoken But on what He hath actually Revealed And we have means thanks be to God To know this Absolute Sense as I shall declare in the 9. Chapter where the Objection is fully solved 5. In the mean time be pleased to reflect first That Protestants Glosses as iniurious to Gods Word as Those of the Arians when meer Fallible men Peremptorily put upon Scripture a Sense which They cannot so much as probably prove But by their own Erring guesses only to be the true meaning of the Holy Ghost and this in a matter which Highly concerns Saluation They plainly Injure Gods Sacred Word Protestants are these fallible men and do so Ergo they injure Gods Word The first Proposition is clear in the Case of Arians who Becaus They peremptorily give a Sense to those Scriptures which relate to the Real Vnity of Three Persons in one Divine Essence the matter is of High importance and cannot prove it But by the force of Their Erring Guesses only They wrong both God and his Word The second Proposition is as Evident For The Proof Protestants absolutely say The Scriptures now cited include not yea positively exclude a perpetual infallibility allowed the Church This sense and 't is a Point of highest Importance For the clearing of it End 's all Controversies they cannot prove But by their own Erring guesses only And therfore injure Scripture in saying God hath spoken that which cannot be so much as probably proved was Spoken 6. Reflect 2. It is not enough that Sectaries tell us upon their own fallible Parole That our Places of Sectaries come not home to the difficulty Scripture May be interpreted as they please or come not home to prove the Churches Infallibility For Admit thus much Gratis They yet convince nothing Because it is one thing to say and God knows only to say it our alleged Scriptures for example that of St. Paul The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth prove To say we prove not our Doctrin is not to say They prove the contrary not a Church Infallible and a quite other positively to Teach and prove it to be Fallible The most they can infer out of thiâ— Negative Such places prove not were all granted they desire is that They give the slip to so many Texts of Scripture or infringe so much force of our Proofs Alas This only is to pull as it Their weak endeavour is to pull down not to build up the Machin of their new Doctrin were so much of a House down But it doth not therfore follow that They positively give in as good Texts to the contrary Sense or Build up the Structure of their new Doctrin concerning the Churches Fallibility To pull down one Proof is not to destroy all we can say we have more Strings to our Bow then one much les is it to build up an opposite Doctrin The Machin these Sectaries would fain build lyes in this one positive Assertion The whole Church is Fallible This say I Fancy only Erect's For it stands unprop't Fancy doth all with them That is it neither is nor can nor shall ever be positively proved And hence 7. Reflect 3. If Protestants who rely totally on Scripture Proof Positively Assert as They do That the whole Church is Fallible They are obliged both in Conscience and all Law of Disputation to prove what They say For Asserenti incumbit probatio Observe my reason When Luther and Sectaries came amongst us and troubled the world They heard the voice of a whole Ancient Church against them owning the infallible Assistance of Gods Directing Spirit for which we now argue The Church pleaded thus Olim possideo prior possideo This Spirit of infallibility I long since have had and yet upon Scripture proof do Believe Well Now enter these Sectaries They first reject Church Authority and then make Scripture speak as Fancy pleases and first Reject the Authority of this Ancient Church next They fall abord with our Scriptures And becaus they are good at Guessing They tell us Verily These Scriptures seem not to prove a Church Infallible Becaus They are able to interpret all to a contrary Sense To this we have Answered Their seeming is no proof Withall That Catholicks as Many and Learned as They both can and do interpret them otherwise Hitherto therfore their cause is nothing Advanced More then is necessary And it is That whilst They positively establish a new coyned Doctrin of a whole Christian Church fallible contrary to what Antiquity ever owned I say 't is necessary That they bring some Positive proof and make good Their unheard of Assertion 8. And here we may have plain dealing if Sectaries Protestant have no Text of Scripture against an Infallible Church please Turn then to your Bible Gentlemen and shew me any Text like this The whole Church of Christ is not the Pillar and ground of Truth The Holy Ghost will not ever Teach it all Truth God hath placed Pastors and Doctors in his Church But such as may suffer us to be carried away with every wind of fals Doctrin c. Such Expressions we read in our Bible for the contrary Verity Have you any thing like them in yours to prove your opposite Asserted Doctrin I say any like them For I Press not to have from you the same Formal Words But will be content with one plain significant Text and we will stand to Scripture Or if Scripture please you not we will accompany you to Councils and Fathers which so much as Meanly makes the whole Church of Christ Fallible Such a Scripture I tell you once more you cannot produce Ergo you only vent your Fancies you talk and prove not you believe a Doctrin which you cannot show was ever Revealed in Gods Word You may perhaps trifle it out and Tell us as you are wont to do of our errors de facto It is nothing to the purpose For What we desire of Sectaries we enquire not here after your proofles Assertions They are Answered a hundred times over nor ask what
Themselves and the evidence of the former that is of the Churches infallibility not only denyed and Disputed down by Protestants but also questioned by their own Authors You End This Question I chalenge the whole Club of Iesuits solidly to Answer I Answer very catagorically without Clubbing it and say first The Catholick hath more then meer probable Evidence of the Doctrin of the Curches infallibility The Sectary by his own Principles hath not so much as probable evidence of the Doctrin of the Scriptures infallibility Independent of the Church I say 2. Though the Sectary had probable evidence of the Scriptures infallibility yet it is a useles book in his hands 13. The first Assertion contain's two parts I prove the first The Catholick hath a Church evidenced by Vnparallel'd Miracles by conversions of whole Nations from Infidelity to our Christian Verities He hath a Church manifested by all those other Glorious Cognisances of Truth which the Apostolical Church shewed to the world not one is excepted as is proved Disc 1. c. 9. 10. If therfore that Apostolical Church was prudently believed to deliver infallible Doctrin and this before Scripture was writ by the inducements of those illustrious marks and Characters of Truth wherwith it was adorned our Roman Catholick Church that undeniably evidenceth the very like signs is proved upon that Reason to deliver also infallible Doctrin For where there are the same effects and signs of infallible Doctrin the Infallibility of it is as it were witnessed by them otherwise such Motives would be both inefficacious and useles whilst God shewes them for this end that all may give Assent to his infallible Verities taught by that Oracle where they evidently appear and I believe led on by the inducements yet must forsooth only believe uncertainties or fallible Doctrin that may be fals 14. The Doctrin therfore of the Roman Catholick Church is now as well made immediately Credible by vertue of these Motives as the Apostolical Church was before the writing of Scripture And These Motives in order to the Learned and those who prudently seek for Truth first and most immediatly Demonstrate the Church or Those persons that teach infallible Doctrin by whose Authority we learn what and where infallible Truth is professed That these marks and signs immediatly belong to the Persons that Teach infallibly and not to Scripture is undoubted Mark 16. 17. These signs shall follow in my name they shall cast out Divels c. Again not only the Doctor of the Gentils 2. Cor. 12. 12. call's the wonders He wrought Signa Apostolatus sui the marks of his Apostleship but a greater Doctor also Truth it self Iohn 10. 25. when the Jewes would not believe him remitted them to the evidence of his Miracles The works which I do in the name of my Father these give Testimony of me And vers 38. If you will not believe me believe the works Works therfore and wonders Annexed to the persons or Church that Teaches Forceably induce prudent men to believe the certain Doctrin Delivered by them who shew such wonders In a word here is all I would say No Religion is evidently true or fals ex Terminis upon the bare Affirmation of Him that sayes its true or fals Therfore it must have the Evidence of its Credibility manifested before Christians admit of the Doctrin But this Evidence is first manifested by such signs and Miracles as Christ and the Apostles personally shewed to the world and by vertue of them induced Aliens from Truth to believe it as Infallible Doctrin Therfore whatever Church shewes such Miracles the like signs and wonders as Christ and his Apostles manifested plead's as well for the Infallibility of its Doctrin witnessed by such Miracles as the Apostolical Church Did. But the Roman Catholick Church only and no other shewes these Miracles Efficacy of Doctrin Vniversality strange Conversions and other most Convincing Motives Therfore if the first Christians induced by such evidence firmly believed the Apostolical Doctrin to be infallible which was not ex terminis evidently infallible we may now upon the very like Inducements not for the inducements as the last Motive Believe as securely upon our Churches Authority the Doctrin taught by it to be infallible Deny this Evidence of our Motives and we force Sectaries to prove the Denial by as sure Principle as we Assert them Grant them and our Argument is concluding And here you have more them a meer probable Evidence of the Churches infallibility 15. An Other Argument for it besides those Scriptures cited Disc 2. C. 6. n. â— is not only probable but unanswerably Convincing hinted at Disc 1. C. 2. n. 9. Christ as is confessedly granted both by Catholicks and Sectaries sent Pastors up and down the world to teach Christian Doctrin But he never sent any to teach fallible Doctrin which may be fals Ergo He sent them to teach his own infallible Doctrin and Infallibly I prove it He sent none to teach any other Doctrin then that which may be ultimately resolved into Gods infallible veracity revealing Truth But that which is ultimatly resolved into an infallible Veracity can neither be fals nor fallible Doctrin because God as I now said ownes no fallible Doctrin that may be fals Therfore this Resolution of an Act tending fallibly into Devine Revelation is rather Non-sense then Faith I infallible believe Christ to be God and Man because Gods infallible Revelation will have me to believe so For No Infallible Motive applyed to my vnderstanding as it is infallible can draw from me a fallible belief of a Doctrin that 's meerly fallible But All Sectaries whether Arians Donatists or Protestants Teach only fallible Doctrin and fallibly Ex parte Docentis Ergo they Teach not that Doctrin which Christ sent his Ministers to teach or that can be resolved into Gods infallible Veracity revealing Truth Yet most certainly some Christian Pastors by vertue of Christ Mission teach his infallible Doctrin Infallibly and these are the Pastors of the Roman Catholick Church who only lay claim to Infallibility and prove it also as the Apostles Did by the Antecedent Evidence of those Motives which the Church shewes and manifesteth to the world as is now Declared I chalenge Mr. Poole directly and Catagorically to Answer this my Reason without talking any more of Clubbs or running into Generalities and in as few clear words as I Deliver it 16. Now to prove the other part of my Assertion Viz. Sectaries by their own principles have not so much as a probable Evidence of the Scriptures infallibility without Church Authority Here is my principle The infallibility of Scripture which contains many Difficulties tell 's strange stories and seemingly often speak's contradictions is not by it self or own light so evidently Credible to the Eyes of a Reader as the infallibility of the Apostolical Church was evident by Miracles and Conversions to the Primitive Christians who believed it infallibly At least S. Austin judged it
not so Evidently Credible when He saith He would not believe the Gospel unles the Authority of the Church moved him to believe it The Infallibility of it therfore must by proved by some good Principles extrinsick to Scripture but the Sectary hath not one sound Principle Distinct from the Tradition and Authority of the Church wherby this Infallibility is proved Therfore Scripture in order to Him is not so Infallible as the Church is to the Catholick If any Deny my principle and make the Scriptures Infallibility Discernable by its own light by the Majesty of the style purity of its Doctrin or efficacy it works in the minds of those who read it c. I think there are evident Demonstrations against the Paradox For as I noted Disc 1. C. 2. 12. n. 4. Two things are to be considered in Scripture first the exteriour Syntax or Connexion of the words and so much precisely is not the Scriptures total Infallibility which sayes more besides that exteriour language and necessarily implies A Divine Act a Volition or Decree of God wherby the Hagiographers that writ the words were infallibly assisted and determined to record truth and nothing but Truth Now this Divine Volition or Decree becaus it is essential to God and therfore no other but God Himself can be no Object of our senses when we hear or read Scripture Consequently it is to be Discovered by a Discours grounded on Principles distinct from the outward letter of Scripture wherby we may come to a sure Evidence of its Infallibility not at all yet within the reach of our senses And this no Sectary can do as I shall presently make Evident 17. I say Therfore if the Motives now alleged for the Churches Infallibility as Conversions Miracles Vniversality c. induce not immediatly to believe that Church they demonstrate to be Infallible much less can the exteriour words or sintax of Scripture be a fit Medium to Convince any of its Infallibility And to prove this besides what is often noted in the Treatise Chiefly Disc 1. C. 8. n. 7. Ill here only Propose two Questions The first Whether if St. Iohn who was infallibly Assisted had not recorded that short sentence in His Gospel The Word is made flesh but some other not infallibly Assisted by the Spirit of God had written the very same Verity as it were by Chance My Question I say is whether the Sectary that now reads this sentence in S. Iohn Gospel can more Discover an Infallibility in it by force of the outward words then if they had been Casually written by one without Infallible Assistance I think He will not dare to say yes or if He Do I 'll urge Him to prove it by Principles when the outward words are the Very same in both Cases and in like manner clear to all that read them My second Demand may yet perhaps better evidence what I ayme at and is thus Suppose that our Sectaries should put the book of Eclesiastes which they hold Canonical into the hands of twelve learned Gentile Philosophers and with it the book of Wisdome or Eclesiasticus also not held Canonical by them Suppose again They desire these learned and disinterressed men seriously to read these three books and after the reading Sincerely to tell them which of them hath Gods Spirit in it or contains his infallible Verities For this may be easily gathered by the very natural evidence of what they read by the Majesty of the style Efficacy of speaking which appears Clearly enough in the outward letter Thus much don seperate these Philosophers by four and four into three Companies put them into three different cells much after that manner as some say the sevently Interpreters were separated Let them with all sincerity read examin and peruse these Books and if when the work is ended they unanimously accord that a greater Divinity a stronger infallibility appear's in the song of Salomon then in the other two books we will say something is proved and hold it as strange a Miracle as that which S. Austin recounts of the 70. Interpreters Now if Any tell us this light of Scripture though sufficient in it self is not evident to every one that looks on it because the blindnes or perversnes of mens minds may keep them from the Discovery of it The Reply hath no place here for we suppose first these Philosophers to be disinterressed learned upright and sincere as well in their reading as in the judgement they give of it And secondly we will suppose that all those are not blind whom Sectaries make blind nor only those quick sighted I mean themselves whom they will have so 18. To these Questions I add one more it may pass for an Argument Ad hominem against Sectaries who hold all the Definitions of our Church even when they are true to be yet fallible I Ask whether these Quick sighted men are able to Discern the Fallibility of these Definitions by force of the outward words therof only as they Discover the infallibility of Scripture by the Majesty of the style and outward Sintax And mack where the force of the Difficulty lies As Infallibility necessarily implyes Divine Assistance in order to the Truths Delivered in holy Scripture so the supposed Fallibility of the Churches Definitions implyes a want of that Assistance in order to those Definitions I Ask therfore whether as the first is Discernable and visible enough to their Eyes by the very context of the outward letter They will consequently grant that the other also is as clearly visible and Discernable by the very words of the Definition If They Answer yes First they need not hereafter to impugn the Churches Definitions by any other Medium but this that they are without further proof by themselves evidently fallible So much is said by them and it proof enough 2. They may as well say They know when a man tell 's a lye and this by force of his very speaking as that they know the supposed Fallibility of the Churches Definitions by her speaking For if their eyes can Discern the want of Divine Assistance in the one case which really is not wanting they may more easily Discern the want of Truth in the other which really is wanting And if this be not a Paradox there was never any in the world Now contrarywise if they cannot Discover the Churches supposed Fallibility in her Definitions meerly by her Exteriour words because that is a thing invisible I would gladly learn how They come to know the Infallibility of Scripture by the words Therof for that is as much if not more invisible and as far removed from our eyes and senses 19. Some who pittifully suppose Scriptures to be proved Divine and Infallible by the very light which is in them Object first When we see the sun and the vast extent of the light it has we may well infer it comes from that luminous body And may we not say These proportionably inferr from the
God might have wrought Miracles by one that was purely Man and not Omnipotent and He did so de facto by his Disciples as He for told them Iohn 14. 12. Majora horum facient that they should do greater wonders Therfore other Principles and none could be more strong then Christs own Testimony besides His Miracles were necessary to beget certain Faith of his Godhead in Believers And so we say The Testimony of the Church Evidenced by signes and wonders is also necessary to beget a full Assurance of the Scriptures Infallibility without it we have no Divine certainty of Gods Word 23. Now I return a second Answer to the Objection and say A person that is not infallible can speak of things suitable to the Divine Nature and above the reach of humane reason of vertue and Godlines c. For not only the book of Herman or Hermes Called the Pastor highly valued of by some Ancient Fathers but other writings also though untruely ascribed to the Apostles often speak Divinely yet never were admitted by the Church as Canonical or Gods Infallible word Nay more Some parts of the Gospel and the Epistles of S. Iames and S. Iude also were not for a time received as Canonical by the Ancient Church though they spak then as Divinely and were as Insallibly Gods word as they are now the Ancient Church that had eyes as good as Sectaries red them yet Discovered no Infallibility or Divinity in them upon this account that they spak of things suitable to the Divine nature And who sees not but that the books of Wisdom and Eclesiasticus contain as high Doctrin as Divine Precepts as are in Salomons Proverbs or Eclesiastes yet the later are Divine with Sectaries and the former not And here I would willingly learn whether the first Protestants that admitted of the later and rejected the Other as Apocryphal did so because they smel't as it were a Divinity in those they received by the very reading and not in the former I am sure the more learned Protestants give other Reasons For these grounds therfore I say the Argument above is so unreasonable that I wonder men of judgement Ventured to propose it Now if they believe the Scripture to be Infallible because of the Miracles and other wonders internal to the book wrought in confirmation of its Doctrin Make a right Analysis and Ask why they believe these Miracles to be Infallible Scripture and follow them closely till they come to a Propositio Quiescens or an undoubted Principle And you 'l find the very Reason returned you to be the thing in Question Although we granted which is not true that Scripture it self said all things contained in the book are infallibly Gods Word For it would be demanded a new How They know that very Assertion to be Scripture 24. For these Reasons some Sectaries will say The Scriptures infallibility is to be proved by Discours not grounded on the meer light or Majesty therof but by probable Principles extrinsick to it And here is one Argument We know by humane Authority Morally certain that Scripture was writ by holy men Prophets Euangelists and Apostles I answer we know not so much of all the books in Scripture without the Churches Testimony For it is doubtful who writ the books of Iosue and Iudges and it is still in Controversy whether Salomon writ the Proverbs and therfore some not only Catholicks but Sectaries also are of opinion that if we rely on humane and historical Authority only we have greater and more particular Assurance that S. Thomas for example writ his summ of Divinity then we have Assurance of the particular Authors of no few books in Holy Scripture Again though we had this certainty grounded on History yet no man among Sectaries who say all Churches erred before Luther can tell us upon moral certainty whether the first Authentick Originals were afterward Corrupted or no by Ancient Hereticks and the supposed erring Church of Rome Se more of this subiect Disc 2. C. 2. n. 7. 8. Others again may Argue from the Miracles wrought by Scripture immediatly And one was as Baronius recounts that this sacred book in Diocletians time being cast into the fire the flames were forthwith extinguished I Answer first both this and other Miracles were only wrought in the true Church and at most prove which is to be noted that the book is true pious and holy but is far from Convincing that we now only inquire after which is its infallibility For God might have don the like Miracle for a true Christian Catechisme Had Diocletian who desired to rase out all memory of Christianity cast that into the Fire also Others argue from the Accomplishment of Prophesies which proves little without the Testimony of the Church First because the very Prophesies and the fulfilling of them must be proved to be Divine Scripture and this cannot be don abstracting from Church Authority 2. These two things are to be distinguished A power to Prophesy and to write as Hagiographers Did Canonical books One may prophesy who only heares from a Prophet what was told him upon the Prophets own Authority but none can write infallibly Canonical books of Scripture but such as have immediately the Assistance of the Holy Ghost to direct him In a word here is the last and most true Resolution of all these Difficulties Unles Sectaries rely on our Churches Testimony for the Infallibility of Scripture they are evidently beaten out of all likelihood of other Principles wherby to prove it is infallible Yet this very Principle of the Church in order to them doth little or nothing for reasons clearly alleged Disc 2. C. 2. n. 6. 7. It is needles to repeat them in this place 25. And it is as needles to prove my second Assertion above n. 12. Which is Though Sectaries had Probable Evidence of the Scriptures infallibility in general yet that doth them no service because it is a useles book in their hands This Proposition is so Copiously proved in the second Discours C. 1. and 2. Where much is said of Sectaries endles dissentions concerning the sense of Scripture though admitted of as Divine that no Unorthodox man shall acquit Himself of the Difficulties there proposed All I 'll do now Though it hath not been my Custome to tire the Reader with long Authorities of Ancient Fathers is to mind him of one only Tertullians Testimony in his book de Praescriptionibus adversus Haereticos cap. 19. His words are Ergo non ad Scripturas provocandum est nec in his constituendum certamen in quibus aut nulla aut incerta victoria est Rigaltius read's par incertae aut parum certa Nam etsi non evaderet collatio Scripturarum ut utramque partem sisteret ordo rerum desiderabat illud prius proponi quod nunc solum disputandum est quibus competat fides ipsa cujus sint Scripturae à quo per quos quando quibus sit
Religion and but one only certain and infallible Perhaps he will say that though his Proposition be fallible yet it is highly probable against the pretended Infallibility of the Roman Church no other society of Christians laying claim to infallibility Mark by the way what this Adversary drives at It is to tell the world a word of comfort viz. That Christ Iesus hath now no certain and infallible Religion taught or learned in the whole Christian world And to make this most fallible and false Proposition good he back 's it by another of his own as false and fallible viz. It is at least highly probable that the Church of Rome is fallible Pray you on what leggs doth this high supposed probability stand I 'll tell you it stands only on Mr. Pooles weak thoughts and unwarranted word more you have not For never did any ancient Council or universal Tradition or the unanimous consent of Fathers hold it a thing highly probable that either Christian Religion or the Catholik Church of Rome is fallible Doth the Scripture favour any where this wild Assertion No not one syllable is found to that purpose we have texts enough to the contrary some I shall quote on a fitter occasion You will ask what then is it that Mr. Pooles proves against us in the fourth Chapter of his Nullity I answer just nothing His whole strain is thus After much tampering with those convincing places of holy Scripture usually alledged for the Churches Infallibility and spoiling all with his fallible fancies he goes negatively to work and tell 's us Such and such texts turned out of their genuine sense by his glosses come not home nor prove any Church infallible and it is no wonder for as perverted by him they are none of Gods Scripture but his own scribled whimsies Take here one instance for many that text of S. Paul 1. Tim. 3. 15. where the Church is stiled the pillar and ground of Truth seem's plain enough open and significant for the Catholik sense Now comes Mr. Poole with his glosses page 86. and saith perhaps here may be an Ellipsis of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be writ for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if so Timothy was the pillar not the Church Again The Church here spoken of may be that wherin Timothy was placed not the Roman 3. The term of pillar notes the solidity not the infallibility of the Church 4. It may note the Churches Duty not her practise with a long c. Observe wel Vpon these wretched fallible suppositions Mr. Poole seem's to conclude that those words are unconcluding for the Infallibility of any Christian society Put I ask by what Authority must I suppose his Ellipsis or that the Church spoken of was Timothy's Church not the Vniversal That the term pillar notes not the Infallibility c Doth God speak thus in Scripture or rather doth not Mr. Poole vent these wild Fancies without Scripture or any unquestioned Authority This later is most evident And can he think by such farfetcht glosses either to rob the Apostle of his plain obvious sense or to make me believe that his guesses hit right on Gods true meaning delivered in this text If he reply the meaning may be as he guesses I answer and it may not be as he guesses Who is here to judge between us Who can tell me that Mr. Pools May be is a prop sure enough to build my faith upon He is therfore to show positively by a Propositio quiescens that is by some cogent proof and undoubted Authority that S. Pauls words must be understood as he glosses and consequently is obliged to make good some one of these desperate Propositions Christ Iesus hath now no infallible Religion taught or learned in the Christian world All Christian Societies are fallible That holy and universal Church mentioned in the Creed is fallible c. But to wave such proofs to lay hold on a Text in Scripture and torture it as he pleaseth and after the misusage to tell us the Text proves nothing is only to sport with Gods Word and say that Scripture made no Scripture by whole heaps of fallible glosses is proofles The foundation is good but the superstructure is naught Give me the strongest place in Scripture for any Article of Christian faith I can by pidling at the Text with unevidenced glosses both so pervert and poyson the words that at last they speak haeresy Yet on such unproved conjectures Protestant Religion stands and can never have better footing while Gods unwritten Word is rejected and no infallible Teacher is allowed of that learn's us Truth One word more and I end Had those two Gallants Luther and Calvin when they took upon them to reform the darkned world of Popery thus allarm'd their Hearers My Masters We Preach indeed a new Gospel upon the best conjectures we are able but you must know that all we say is fallible How sick would such a saying have made the strongest stomack amongst them For if fallible if uncertain Doctrin it was none of Christ Iesus Doctrin and therfore stood in need of a more pure refining And how know our Protestants but that yet a new sort of People may start-up and make it their task to reform all the fallible Reformers that have troubled the world since Luthers dayes Had I no other just exception against our Protestants but thus much only That they yet know not where about They are in their reformation and because fallible can never know whether for example the thing they have in hand be yet a meer Embrio of Religion or of a more perfect shape a new layd egg or a hatcht chicken whether they themselves are yet only Novices Proficients or Masters in the trade of Reformation I say were there no more This alone would fright me from ever being Protestant Believe it the Professors of an uncertain and endles reformable Religion shall never come to settlement till they renounce the cheat and Believe as the Apostle teaches ad Gal. 1. 8. Licet nos c. Altough we or Angel from heaven preach otherwise to you then we have preached to you let him be accursed which is fully to say Believe him not And here by the way observe how destructive these words are of an uncertain and fallible teaching in matters of Religion for admit which Mr. Poole grants that all Christian Communities all Councils all Fathers all Tradition c. deliver only Fallible Doctrin that is Doctrin lyable to errour I only may not but am obliged to disbelieve this Truth of S. Paul and believe him or an Angel sent from heaven if either of them preached contrary to this fallible Learning Why Doctrin that is fallible may be false but the preaching of an Angel sent from heaven cannot be false and therfore is more certain then Christian Doctrin that may be false But I am obliged to quit the lesse certain Doctrin for the most certain preaching of an Angel
ergo I must relinquish Christianity if an Angel preach against it The reason is The lesser light yeilds to the greater probability submits to certainty and my fallible though highly probable Assent cannot but yeild to the infallible Assertion of an Angel if he speak contrary to it These few considerations premised we must insist more largely on this subject and demonstrate that there are living and infallible Teachers of Religion in some one Society of Christians or other which is directly opposite to Mr. Poole who holds That no men are so highly priviledged by Almighty God as to have subjective infallibility or to teach infallibly though perhaps they may deliver truth as it were by chance but not infallibly as Teachers I say as Teachers for by what I can learn by Mr. Poole and other Protestants They think all done when they tell us That the objective Doctrin delivered in Scripture is infallible which yet they cannot know without an infallible Teacher and therfore in saying this they speak only fallibly but admit they know so much they are never the better for it unles they joyntly own some Oracle some certain Master who by Divine assistance interpret's Scripture without errour and as exactly convey's into our harts Gods written revealed Verities when any doubt ariseth as if the Apostles taught us These Teachers are they can we find them out that circumscribe our ranging Fancies and put a limit to our swerving Thoughts while we often read and seldom understand those great secrets which God hath layd up in the book of Sctipture without them as we see by too sad experience our weak reason and strong Fancies pervert all and produce monsters of haeresies out of Scripture it self wherof more hereafter THE FIRST DISCOVRS OF INFALLIBLE TEACHERS AND THE MOTIVES OF CREDIBILITY THE FIRST CHAPTER There Are infallible Teachers of true Christian Religion 1. BEfore I prove the Assertion I would gladly learn of our Adversaries who make all men fallible whether for these thousand years the world ever had in it any Christians who heard the infallible Doctrin of Christ truly taught and infallibly believed it If they disown such infallible Believers they must joyntly deny all infallible Faith and consequently say That though God hath revealed in Scripture innumerable Verities yes and for this end to beget infallible Faith in our harts yet no man can lay hold on them nor yeild to them by any other assent but what is fallible and may be false Methinks therfore Gods infallible Revelation requires an infallible assent of Faith an infallible Verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible assent of Faith in us For to say God speak's infallibly to me and that I either will not or cannot infallibly believe him is in a word to tell him that his certain Truths may ly close where they are in the book of Scripture they may rest there without being layd up or lodged in my hart as infallible owned and believed Truths Most contrary are those golden words of the Apostle 1. Thess 2. v. 12. to this wild Doctrin Therfore we thank God without intermission because when ye received the word of God which ye heard from us ye received it not as the word of men but as it truly is the word of God who effectually works in you that believe Observe well He who receives the delivered Word of God as it is truly Gods Word and not mans He that hath in his hart the infallible Word of God and by the cooperation of Grace yeilds an assent to it as to the infallible word of God cannot but believe what God speak's and as he speak's but God speak's infallibly Therfore he believes infallibly or if he reach not so high but faulters with an assent that is fallible he Believes not God nor his Word as it truly is Gods Word who never did nor can speak any thing fallibly Now if on the other side our Adversaries grant that Christians heard the infallible Doctrin of Christ and believed it infallibly They also must admit of a Subjective infallibility at least in such Believers And this truth Scripture clearly points at in these and the like undeniable places obvious to all I know who I believe and am certain Let the house of Israël certainly know Although we or Angel from heaven c. Faith is a conviction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a strong argument of Belief that is infallible supposeth infallible Teachers what appears not c. But these I wave because known to every one Let us now proceed to the Teachers of Christian Religion and prove our Assertion 2. To go on clearly I would know whether there have not alwayes been now are and ever will be among These true and infallible Believers some Pastors Doctors or Teachers who Authorised by Christ are by Duty both to instruct Christians in case they swerve from Truth and also to reduce Aliens from Christ to a true Belief of his sacred Doctrin Certainly Mr. Poole will own such Pastors in the world if not what are Ministers for in England Or why doth He assume to himself this Office of teaching whilst He endeavours to reclaim a seduced Captain from his Apostacy as he call's it And is it possible What After such an The harsh Doctrin of Sectaries acknowledgement shall we hear this unheard harsh and most Haeretical Assertion That all these Pastors who are to unbeguile soules may be beguiled Themselves or teach false Doctrin And that not so much as one amongst them all is so Highly priviledged as to instruct with certainty If all are fallible and none Teaches certainly the Blind lead's the blind the Scholler is as good as his Master at least none can in prudence learn of any if this perswasion live in him He that Teaches me may as well erre as I who am to Learn If an unskilful Traveller enquire the way to an unknown place of one knowing it no better then he that asks He travel's on with no security and This is our very case Amongst so many By-ways so many mazes of Sects and Schisms as now swarm in the world and like cobwebs intricate thousands of souls in their journey we are posting on as fast as Time can drive us to a place yet unknown a long Eternity The directing thread that safely drawes us out of these Labirinths is Sure Firm and infallible Faith we ask to learn this of our new Doctors and not one can certainly say Such is the way This infallibly is the Faith that winds us out of errour and most assuredly lead s to Heaven or if any say so much he speaks only Fallibly 3. And here is the summary of Protestants comfortles Protestants doctrine comfortles Doctrin They have Pastors that talk but Teach nothing certainly They have Infallible Verities lock'd up in Scripture but none can open that Book or convey them with Assurance into mens harts They hear God speak but none
impudent he must say No. All therfore he can reply is That the Ministers of his Church after a perusal of Scripture find these Verities contained there and Propose all to him as things Certainly revealed Therfore he believes them Here we come to the trial of Protestants Faith and mark well How unavoydably They are forced to grant That when a pretended Revelation Sectaries must own an Infallible Proponent is not manifest for them But lyes if at all very darkly in Scripture it must be brought to light and made more clear by some Teacher Some one or other if it have influence into Faith must Apply it and Propose it to a Hearer as Gods certain Word Without this Application made by a certain Teacher no Christian can but most temerariously admit of the Revelation as Divine and Certain 10. Demand therfore in the last place Whether all the Ministers in England are able to propound certainly and infallibly the above mentioned Doctrins darkly at least and indeed not all contained in Scripture as Gods revealed Truths to any The answer must be Negative They cannot for if they propose them infallibly Ministers are infallible Ergo say I none can Believe these Doctrins for Gods certain Revelation Because the Proposal of them absolutely necessary to apply the Revelation is defective weak dubious and uncertain The Faith therfore which followes upon so unsteedy a Teaching cannot but be answerably rowling That is in one word no Faith at all And Protestants have no better 11. Some perhaps may say Though Protestants have no great Certainty of the Doctrins above specified because they are neither expresly in Scripture nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher yet their Faith in Fundamentals universally held by all Christians stand's sure enough and is infallible Such Truths shall never fail and so far the Pastors of the Church may it is likely be held infallible 12. Hereafter we shall treat more largely of Fundamental points and Therfore at present will wave what is not pertinent to answer this Reply And pertinent Why Doctrine of Protesta as Protestants is uncertain it is to say first That not one Doctrin peculiar to Protestants as Protestants because neither expresly found in Scripture nor Asserted by any infallible Teacher can certainly be believed upon Divine Revelation That these Sectaries teach not their own Protestant Tenents infallibly is granted That Scripture doth not in express Terms without intolerable glossing deliver one of them shall be made after a few pages most evident And thus if this last Reply be to any purpose it brings Ruin to that part of Doctrin which is called Protestancy I say secondly There is scarce one Article of Christs Sacred Doctrin so clearly expressed in Scripture which may not would men take the liberty as Sectaries do by wilful Glosses to alienate it from the Churches sense be perverted Arians have taught them this mode of Glossing and they exactly follow it Separate therfore the words Doubful words of Scripture separated from the sense of an Infallible Interpreter ground not Faith of Scripture from the Sense of an infallible Interpreter we can Believe nothing we have no more but a body without a Soul guesses without certainty And upon such uncertainties the whole Faith of Protestants doth and must rely which is deplorable And here ask them when They appeal as They ever doe to Scripture What they mean by Scripture which needs Interpretation even in Points most Fundamental Must we admit of their Interpretation Why so more then of others as learned as They Why not as well on the present Churches Interpretation This is as good to say no more as their fallible Guesses are But of this Subject hereafter I say thirdly Never The Church in all her Doctrine equally infallible any Catholick Church hitherto held it self infallible in a few Fundamental Doctrins and not in others Therfore Protestants are more insolently bold whilst they attempt to make this Distinction then ever any Church yet was What That meer fallible Men shall be my Doctors and ex tripode define So far the Church holds infallible Doctrin But no further T' would be well nigh eight Degrees of madnes in me to believe them Admit once of this A new Haeretick may step out and defend as stoutly yea and upon as solid grounds that Scripture it self it not infallible but only in a few Fundamental Matters yet unknown to the world If you say this sounds too harshly and cannot be granted Parallel I beseech you your own wild Assertion with it The Church is Christ's Schole and se whether that runs much smoother Thus it is Christ hath erected a School which is his Church where Christians are to learn his Sacred Doctrin But when they come to it They find more then the half of its Doctrin doubtful fallible unsound uncertain Alas Aristotle's or Plato's School can cfford us Topicks and uncertainties enough I hope Christs School can learn us better Fourthly Were the Church falsly supposed Fallible in the delivery of some Doctrin lesse Fundamental it would be much safer to believe it then Protestants who may err in all they say And then most when being void of proofs They stand trifling with a Distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals Herein as in all other things they are most fallible and must I think ye credit men that can say nothing certainly 13. Fifthly and I end Admit once of a Church with this half infallibility in fundamentals our Sectaries who so furiously oppugn that whole infallibility which we ascribe to the Roman Church must Answer their own Arguments against us For here we question them as they do us Where or in what Rational Queries made to Protestants Subject is that partial infallibility lodged What Pastors designable are endewed with it How shall we make our Addresses to them in doubts and difficulties if none know where or who they are What kind of infallibility is this By whose assured Testimony can we learn what is de fide funaamentali what not What if these Pastors be devided amongst themselves in their Decisions of fundameetals whose judgement is finally to be stood too c. These and the like Questions most easily answer'd by Catholicks when They give an account of their Belief as I shall shew in the Resolution of Faith press so strongly upon Protestants that not one of them shall ever have a satisfactory Answer Perhaps to Protestants pretence to a private Spirit solve them some will recurre to the private Spirit and say This tell 's them all Truth in these doubts Contra. Ask only here Whether this Spirit makes them or their Pastors infallible or can direct others to find out such infallible Pastors If they reply Those are such as Teach Gods Word purely the Answer is impertinent for we ask whether it Assists any to Teach Gods pure Word infallibly And who they are It may be others will say that Christ never had since the Apostles
how useles a Book These impious Glosses are laid forth only to show Sectaries how Scripture may be abused sole Scripture is with These men to end their Differences yea and what monsters are produced out of it by those that pretend most to Gods written Word And what is the reason think ye That these Sole-Scripturists These Arians These Protestants These Anabaptists c. are so various so opposite in their Tenents begot as they think out of the true written Word From whence the abuse proceeds of God Is it for want of wit learning or languages They thus Differ No. Is it for the want of Study and conferring one place of Scripture Clear as they think with others Obscure No Both Arians and Protestants have done this long ago Is it that all these Sectaries go against their Conscience or wilfully draw Gods Word to a pervers sense He never spake let the Innocent cast the first stone at the Guilty Truly I suspect it in Some yet cannot judge that All are Conscious of so hideous an Impiety 6. The true Reason therfore is These Sectaries The true reason is given after the Rejecting of Gods infallible Church the Oracle of Truth will by no more then half an Ey of Human Reason dive into the deep Secrets of Gods Eternal Wisdom Obscurely revealed in Scripture and herein they neither shew Judgement nor Learning With this pur-blind Eye of weak Reason They go to work They steer on their cours they judge They Determin They Define They Pronounce their fallible Sentiments on these High Mysteries which never the lesse Reason alone is uncapable to comprehend or Master Hence Why Sectaries vary as they do They vary as they do Hence it is they weary themselves out with opposite frivolous Interpretations of Gods Word which is but one whilst they are so divided in their Tenents Hence it is That almost every year we have a new Religion broach'd in England Such a jumbling we must expect such endles Dissentions amongst them And t is a just Judgement of God for their Pride who truely are no more but poor Schollers yet Disdain to learn of a good Master that 's willing to teach them all Truth 7. I call it a Iumbling for from Scripture by Reason of its les clear speaking arise these Dissentions and though it be quoted a Thousand times says no Endles Confusion about the sense of Scripture more now Then it did sixteen hundred years agon And therfore cannot end them They next fall upon a doubtful conferring one Passage of the Bible with another Several Versions and Languages are examined much Adoe they make And all is to know what God speaks in such Texts but without fruit For their Differences are as High as ever And neither Party gaines or looses the Victory Since Scripture alone nor the Comparing of Texts together is able to draw either side from their Preconceived Opinion After the Conferring of places They are hard at it with Fallible Explications when behold express Scripture is cast away by these two Combatants And now either the One must learn of the Other what God speaks in Scripture by a human fallible Explication which is no Scripture or nothing is concluded Arians and Protestants equally uncertain Who is then to be held the Master Interpreter the Arian or Protestant Neither And they have both Reason for it For neither ought to yeild in their own Principles The quarrel Therfore goes on and is endles If after Their fallible Explications of Scripture they proceed to Inferences This followes That followes c. All is plain Sophistry for Vpon what unsteedy Foundations Haresy stands Scripture Vitiated with a fals Explication can never Support a true Illation And upon such unsteedy Foundations all Haeresy stand's Scripture not understood is the Ground doubtful Collations of places fallible Explications fals Illations are the Superstructure They have no more And thus you se how useles a Book Why Scripture is useles in the hands of an Haeretick A question propose and answered of Scripture is in the hands of an Haeretick who neither can tell me so much as Truely much les Infallibly what God speak's in These High controverted Points of our Christian Faith 8. But you 'l ask how then happens it that Mr. Poole and Protestants hit right in yeilding an Assent to some Catholick Verities for Example to a Trinity of Persons in one Divine Essence and Contrary to Arianism Protestants acknowledge a Trinity by Oversight Profess the Son to be consubstantial with his Eternal Father in one Divine Nature I answer They light upon these Verities by an Oversight or as I may say meerly by Chance By Oversight For believe it had Luter thought well On 't He might with more ease have denyed These High Mysteries of our Faith then the Real change of bread in the Holy Eucharist By Chance For as by chance They Stole Or by Chance a Bible from the old Catholick Church so casually They took from her Here and There as it pleased Fancy somewhat of her Ancient Tradition also And upon This ground of Tradition or the infallible Doctrin of the Catholick Church They Believe as Vnawares engaged in a Belief They labour in vain to find Scripture for it well as they can These Sublime mysteries Being thus unawares engaged in a Belief They weary their Heads and wear out their Bible to find expres Scripture for it which cannot be found Becaus forsooth they will Believe nothing upon Tradition or the Churches infallible Doctrin I say Expres Scripture cannot be found that Assert's Three distinct Persons in one Divine Essence or the Word to be Consubstantial with his Eternal Father Therfore if they Believe these Verities They must Ground their Faith not upon sole Scripture But on Scripture explicated by that never erring Oracle of Truth the Catholick Church Or on the Word of God not written which we call Tradition You se Sectaries must own the Churches Interpretation or become Arians therfore how our Protestants though in Actu signato they seemingly Reject Tradition and the Churches Interpretation upon Scripture yet in Actu exercito They own both and must necessarily do so or become plain Arians Yet here they are pinch'd again For if they Believe these Mysteries upon Tradition or on Scripture interpreted by the Church They are neither Papists In doing so They are neither Papists nor Protestants nor Protestants No Papists for Papists hold Tradition and the Churches Interpretation infallible No Protestants For They profess to Believe no more then God hath expressed in his written Word Though now they must leave that Hold and believe upon the Catholick Motive or renounce the Faith of these Articles 9. If Mr. Poole pretend expres Scripture for these High Verities of Christian Faith The surest way will be to produce it without Remitting me to other Authors or Adding his fallible Glosses to Gods Word For every Arian knows
or the unchangeable Divine Word seemingly Changed when he took Flesh upon him and became an Infant These are Higher Mysteries and greater Difficulties If Human Reason might be judge and give a final Sentence But I 'll tell you once for all That man shall never be a Proficient in Christs School that will undertake to conquer High Mysteries no to be pried into by our weak discourses as I may say the great Difficulties of Faith by Examining the High Mysteries of it If he goe so to work he is cast into a Labyrinth and can find no Exit All therfore he is to do is to Learn and Examin whether God the Infallible Truth hath Revealed and taught us these Mysteries by any unerring Oracle Next How we are to submit in matters of Faith He is to Captivate his understanding And humbly Submit to him without further search who neither can be Deceived nor will Deceive us But enough of this Digression 6. We se thirdly Though Protestants Anathematize The whole Religion of Protestants is nothing els but addition to Scripture or subtraction from it all that Add to Gods Word or Take from it yet I 'll tell you Their whole Religion as Protestancy is either made up of no Scripture at all or is nothing els but a meer Addition of their own Glosses to Scripture or finally a wilful Subtraction from it To the Words now cited they add a sign a figure and God knows what more Is this Scripture When St. Iames 2. cap. 24. Dogmatically teaches that a man is Justified by Works and not by Faith only our New men tell us the Apostle speak's not of Justification before God but before Men. Is this Scripture When St. Paul Rom. 2. 6. plainly Affirm's That God will render to every one according to his Works Calvin and Beza Assure us He will do so indeed if there were any such But the Mischief is None can do a Good Work before God Is this Scripture No. These and such like Interpretations Our Adversaries do not own for Scripture yet They must own them as Tenents Essential to their Religion Ergo I say Meer Fallible Glosses which are no Scripture make up Protestant Religion as Protestancy And hence Doctrin of the 39 Articles as Protestancy not Scripture it is that their Doctrin delivered in the 39. Articles stand's there with all Clearnes that is you know what they say But when 't is Brought to the Test and is examined by Scripture you may seek long before ye find a word like it as 't is Protestancy 7. You see lastly That the Interpretations which Protestants give to those Texts of Scripture cited by How Sectaries abuse Scripture cited for Catholick Doctrin Catholicks for their Doctrin are meer Human Extra-scriptural and Anti-scriptural Glosses of their own Fancy We cite the Apostle 2. Thess 2. 15. For Tradition beside the Written Word For the Real Presence This is my Body Matt. 26. For Iustification by Good Works that of St. Iames 2. 14. For a Sacrifice to be continued to the Worlds End Malac. 1. 11. For Extream-Vnction Iames the 5. 14. For the Verity and Infallibility of the Church that of St. Paul 1. Timot. 3. 15. And what for Gods sake have we from our New Men to these plain Passages speaking Popery But a Return of meer Mock-fool Glosses Hatch't in their own Heads which have so little Shadow of Scripture in them That with force they drive the very life and sense out of Gods Word And They proceed so unluckily Sectaries make Scripture clear where 't is obscure and obscure where 't is clear That where Scripture is clear They make it obscure and where it is obscure They will seem to make it Clear by superaded glosses What can be more clear for our Catholick Doctrin of the Real Presence then those words of St. Luke 22. v. 19. Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur This is my body which is given for you Yet with their Glosses they so Torture the Text That every Particle in it suffers Violence In so much that Iacobus Scripture tortured by Sectaries Gordonus observes in his first Tome of Controversies printed anno 1612. Controversia prima de Verbo Dei cap. 26. n. 11. pag. 121. No fewer then two hundred different Glosses have been added by Protestants to Obscure the plain sense of Christs own Words Some as this Author notes abuse and misinterpret the Pronoun Hoc Others the Verbe Est Others Corpus Others meum Others the Relative quod Others the Proposition pro Others the Pronoune Vobis Others finally the Verb Datur Yet after all this perverting and woful mangling of Gods Word we must Believe that our Protestants speak forsooth Scripture and nothing but clear Scripture On the contrary side we have seen more then enough in the Beginning of this Chapter how Vainly They cry up the Clarity of Scripture in Mysteries most difficil not fully expressed in Gods Word What man in his Wits can say That any Scripture through the whole Testament Speak's half so clearly of the Consubstantiality of the Eternal Son with his Eternal Father as the Text now quoted is for the Real Presence Yet those Scriptures must be Clear for that Christian Verity and this Obscure for the Real Presence 8. To conclude this point Methinks it highly imports when we deal with our Adversaries concerning How to proceed with Sectaries when They Explicate Scripture Their Explications of Scripture That we do not so much at least in the first place make it our Work Positively to Disprove them by other Texts and Authorities which our Writers usually do and laudably as to put them to the Proof of their wild Glosses which seem's most Reasonable For Asserenti incumbit probatio When therfore They go about to Obscure Scripture where it is plain with new Interpretations the world never heard of bid them not only Interpret but Prove Their Interpretations For example That the words of our Saviour now cited must be alienated from their genuin Sense and tortured as they are by Protestants Proceed thus with them put them to the Proof and you 'l soon see them at a Nonplus CHAP. IV. Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith Protestants have no Scripture for their Religion as it is Protestancy 1. MY first proposition Draw's Proof enough from the precedent Chapter For if Scripture be Obscure and speak not clearly all Verities revealed in the book it cannot Regulate Faith without an Interpreter But 't is more then evident that it speaks not clearly many Verities Concerning the Highest Mysteries of Religion Therfore it cannot Regulate Faith relating to These Mysteries without an Interpreter I prove the Minor Scripture which solely considered according to the Exterior Letter both may The bare letter of Scripture may and doth easily beget error and Doth as easily beget Error as Truth in the Intellectual Power of man Speak's
a lawful Syllogism wherby They prove That Their Reason hath ever the good luck the singular Priviledge to fall right on the True sense whilst No Princiciple to prove that Protestants reason hitt's right Others as learned as They swerve from it If here They talk of the Vnction teaching Truth of the Spirit c. They will be urged again for a Principle to prove That these Favors singularly belong to Them and not to Others who Dissent from them But we will wave this Argument And only note how in all those Disputes which our Protestants hold either with Catholicks or Sectaries take for an Instance the Arians the True sense of Scripture is so far of from being a The sense of Scripture when Two Sectaries dispute is Ever the thing in Question received Principle by both these Litigious Parties That it is ever the Thing in Question and must be proved by another own'd and admitted Principle if the Discours stand upon solid ground 3. One example will give you more Light Mr. Poole Assaults an Arian a far weaker Adversary then a 'T is proved by an Instance Catholick with a Scriptural Proof for that High Mystery of our Faith the Sacred Trinity and argues thus Scripture saith Iohn 1. c. 5. 7. There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father Word and Holy Ghost and these three are one But the Sense of this Scripture saith Mr. Poole is That God is one in Essenceâ— and Three Distinct Persons The Father Vnproduced the Son Produced and the Holy Ghost Proceeding from Both. Ergo we must admit a Trinity Observe well The Arian Admit's the first Proposition or the Words of Scripture And here is the only Principle agreed on by these two Disputants But utterly denyes the second Viz. The Sense drawn out of these Words And tell 's The Arian admit's of the words of Scripture but denies Mr. Pooles sense his Adversary that this Sense is the very Thing in question but no received Principle And therfore must be proved not supposed against him Proved I say and by Sole Scripture which yet cannot be done Though we turn to all the Texts in the Bible Most justly therfore may the Arian tell Mr. Poole If his Faith fall upon such a Determinate Sense now given He Believes it either Becaus His private Judgement molds Scripture to that Meaning or Becaus He takes it upon the Authority of a Church which he professedly Disowns and will not Believe 4. In reference to what is here said note first That as the True sense of Scripture is supposed and not proved against an Arian by force of Scripture in this particular Mystery so much more it is ever supposed and not proved when Protestants dispute against Catholicks The reason is Their private Judgement Protestants first frame to themselves a Sense of Scripture and then triumph first makes what sense they please which is no received Principle and afterward They vapor like Conquerours as if sole Scripture did the deed and defeated us Upon the great Assurance I have of This my Assertion I chalenge Mr. Poole or any Protestant They have not one Text of Scripture against the Roman Catholick Faith without the mixture of Their private Iudgements to produce one Text against the Roman Catholick Faith which without the Mixture of Their private Judgements or unadmitted Glosses speak's so much as Probably against it The more plausible place they insist on is That of St. Iohn cap. 6. Vnles you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood c. For communion under both kinds which nevertheles must have twenty Glosses and as many self Iudgements upon it before it can put on a likelyhood of a proof against us 5. Note 2. That whilst the Sense of Scripture lyes under dispute and is not agreed on by the two Parties Why Protestants loose labour when They argue by Scripture at Difference For example a Catholick and Protestant It is but Labour lost in the Protestant to Assault his Adversary with Texts of Scripture For the Catholick Answers Olim possideo prior possideo I have ever believed the sense of Gods Word to be such as you know we Catholicks own And can you my Antagonist What the Catholick answer's perswade your self to drive me out of the Possession of my Ancient Belief by your Sole private Judgement or Those new Glosses you father on Scripture If so A worthy Gentleman who by right of his Ancestors for a thousand years and upward now quietly possesseth his lands May be turn'd out of House and Harbor upon the private Judgement of some New upstart Fellow That Tell 's him He verily thinks the Ancient Writings for his Lands are not wel Understood Therfore he will first do him the favor to explicate them according to his private Opinion though contrary to the Sense hitherto received which done he will drive him out a doors and make him a Beggar This is our very Case 6. Contrarywise when the Sense of Scripture is How we may argue from Scripture agreed on we may Argue as Schoolmen do and draw from it Theological Conclusions which though often Various amongst Divines yet the Principle admitted I mean the Sense of Scripture remain's unquestioned and is maintain'd without Contradiction Without Such an agreed on sense which either Scripture as it often doth Deliver's plainly enough or The common consent of Learned men makes Highly probable or The Church of Christ declares certain 'T is to no more purpose to Dispute out of Scripture then to speak Arabick to an Illiterate Peasant Yet the loose Behavior of our Protestants is such that it lead's them without the guidance of these Lights first to Fancy The Fancy of Sectaries a Sense of their own and then draw strange Conclusions from it So Mr. Poole After he had by his own Interpretation perverted that Text of St. Paul The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth might wel say The Church is not proved Infallible Thus much is noted if the word Reason signify a formal Discours 7. Perhaps Protestants may reply For in Truth it Another Acception of the word Reason refuted is the hardest thing in the world where to have them in their Answers That Reason here imports not any Discours at all But an immediate clear Light Transfused into their Mind when they read Scripture like a Beam shot from the Sun wherby their Eyes as perspicuously discern the most Abstruse Sense in it as men do the Sun by its Light or the first known Principles of nature by Their own Indisputable Evidences Is this Reply think you rational that draws not so much as a Dram of Reason after it For if their new Faith hath set new Eyes in their head It hath not surely pluck't out their Neighbours Eyes who yet I hope may see what is discernable by All. None then ever questioned the Suns-shining at Noon-day or Writ Commentaries on the first
Truths in Themselves yet so long as they are not proved to be positive revealed Truths or Spoken by Almighty God Protestancy stands like a Starveling void and empty of all revealed Truths Protestancy as so hath no one part of its Doctrin warranted by God And consequently as it is this New Religion hath no one part of its Doctrin warranted by him who upholds all Christian Verities I mean Gods certain Revelation 6. To se this Assertion more clearly Evidenced Hear a little what our Sectaries Answer Some tell us They know right well there is no Purgatory Becaus God hath not revealed it in Scripture There is no real Presence for the same Reason and so they Argue for the rest of their Negatives To this and whatever els can be proposed we have answered Though These Suppositions are very Fals yet Admit of them as True Viz. Thaâ— a Purgatory or Real Presence are not mentioned in Scripture All that follows from hence is That God hath been as it were Silent and omitted to speak of such Objects That Protestants inferences Still proved improbable is as we now falsly suppose He hath neither said there is a Purgatory nor Denyed it Now this Negative God hath said nothing of such a matter as it cannot Ground a positive Belief of a Purgatory so it cannot Ground a positive Belief of the Contrary or No Purgatory Whilst What both Catholicks and Protestants are obliged to prove therfore the Catholick Believes a Purgatory He is obliged to show that God hath Positively Revealed it And if the Protestant Believe no Purgatory He is also Obliged to show that God hath spoken Positively this Objective Truth There is no such place To say then God hath made no mention at all of a Purgatory in Sçripture and to infer from Thence a Belief of no Purgatory is in plain Language to Say I may Actually Believe that by Divine Faith which God never Spake The most therfore That can be Deduced from this Negative were it True God hath Omitted to Reveal a Purgatory is That no man yet knows nor can know upon Revelation whether there be such a Place or no. But to draw from it an Absolute Faith of no Purgatory is and I can term it no better then the last of Nonsense For how many Things are there known to God Which He hath omitted to Reveal Can I Therfore upon that Non-Revelation Rush on them with my Faith and Believe them for his not Speaking at all Yet thus Sectaries Proceed They have Protestants Believe Negatives becaus God hath not Reveal'd them good store of Negatives But not revealed Negatives And They will Believe them Becaus God hath not Revealed them Here briefly is my Discours if it Faulter or seem Faulty to our Adversaries my humble Petition is That they will Vouchsafe to unbeguil ' me and Friendly shew me where the Fallacy lyes If this Discourse be faulty my wish is to hear of the fallacy 7. Some perhaps will say We have Fought all this while with Shadows And supposed These Negatives No Purgatory No Transubstantiation c. To be Objects of Protestants Faith But we err not knowing Their Doctrin For They are only Held Inferiour Truths One Reply refuted Approved by the English Church to mantain Vnion amongst Protestants And not owned as Articles of Faith Thus Two later Men whom you may se largely Refuted Discours 3. c. 6. n. 7. All I 'll say at present is Because Sectaries seldom Agree in Doctrin it is impossible to Confute them all at Once To my Sectaries agree not in Doctrin purpose then There have been Certainly And are yet Protestants I think These the more Numerous That Hold the now named Negatives Articles of Protestants Some own these Negatives Articles of Faith Faith And Against such our Proofs have Force Others that Deny the Doctrin And exclude them from being Articles are in a worse Condition Because upon the Supposition They are Forced to grant That Protestancy hath no Articles of Faith Protestancy as Protestancy contain's not so much as One Article of Divine Faith in it For the whole Reformed part of it is made up of pure Negatives Consequently if Any should utterly Abjure that Religion He would not Abjure one Truth Revealed by Almighty God Se more of this subject in the place now cited And Both are Confuted know That our Adversaries will have Much to do To come of Hansomly whether They Grant These Negatives To be Articles of their Faith or Disown them as Articles This is fairly spoken without Clamours And Mr. Stillingfleet in his Preface to the Reader Believe it Some who tell us They have not Leisure Enough to kill flyes may sweat at it take whether part They please before the Difficulty be solved 8. They may Reply secondly And Endeavor to A second Reply of Sectaries worth Nothing Prove at least one of their Negatives Thus. There is no Purgatory Becaus God hath Revealed in Scripture two Places only Heaven and Hell which seem's Exclusive of a third Place I answer That word Only is neither Scripture nor Revelation Cast therfore that Particle away and Propose the Argument as we ought to do And it falls to nothing Thus it is God hath Revealed two Places and these Eternal it is most True Ergo he hath Revealed the not Being of a Purgatory is Fals and a meer Non-sequitur 9. They may Reply thirdly Catholicks Believe A Third at bad many things upon as pure Negatives for Example A Trinity of Three Distinct Persons in one Divine Essence and no Quaternity or no more Persons then Three yet this Negative is not Revealed in Scripture To Help on this worthles Argument I Grant more That not so much as a Trinity of Distinct Persons is plainly Revealed in Scripture Doth it Therfore Catholicks believe not upon Negative grounds follow that Catholicks Believe that Mystery and Deny a Quaternity upon Negative Grounds No such matter They Believe a Trinity and no Quaternity upon the solid Positive Grounds of their Church Interpreting Scripture upon a Universal Perpetuated Tradition And the Infallible Word of God not Written Protestants are destitute of such Proofs in the Articles they Hold. For They neither have an Infallible Church nor Tradition Nor Written nor Vnwritten Word to Rely on Therfore They Believe upon Fancy oâ—â—y 10. To End This Matter I will here Briefly Becaus An Objection answered conceiâ—â—ing Novelties introduced i 〈…〉 the Church it is Consequent Answer to an old Trivial Objection made by Sectaries against our Present Roman Church which They Accuse of Novelties introduced since the First Primitive Ages And weakly as They are wont Argue after this manner Your Doctrins of Transubstantiation of Praying to Saints of an Vnbloody Sacrifice c. Were not Taught for Three or Four Ages after Christ Therfore say They We may now well hold the Contrary And Believe no Transubstantiation no Sacrifice c.
and all Sectaries would as well Agree in one harmony of Doctrin By force of that clear Interpretation none of Them Denies The clear Sense of Scripture interpreted by Scripture it Self If all agreed in the Sense of Scripture There would be no dissenting as they now agree in owning Scripture to be Divine They accord not in the first therfore Scripture is not its own Interpreter Or if any yet without Proof strongly Assert so much Most Evidently in order to these Dissenting men it is as useles an Interpreter as if it were none at all For it Composeth no Differences Take here one Instance Sectaries to prove Scripture conspicuous and clear without an Interpreter quote these and the like Places Thy word is a Lantern to my feet A Lante◠shining in a dark place c. We answer Scriptures are truely a Light when that outward cover of Ambiguous Words wherin the Sense often lyes Enclosed is broken open by a Faithful Interpreter And withall we add 'T is vainly frivolous to make Them such shining Lamps as to silence all Preaching and Interpretation yet this follows if Sectaries Gloss right For it is ridiculous to interpret or teach that a Lantern shines which I se bright before my Eyes Observe well The Protestant makes Scripture clear without a Teacher The Catholick Interpretation absolutly necessary to Scripture saith Interpretation is Absolutely Necessary Scripture it self Delivers not in Formal Words either the One or Other Gloss Therfore it doth not ever Interpret it self Home or declare its own Meaning Nay it cannot do so For all Interpretation Properly taken is a New More Clear and Distinct Light Superadded to the Formal Words of Scripture But no Hagiographer says This Sacred Book makes any such new Addition of Glosses Therfore it cannot Interpret it self And this is what the Apostle 2. Petri 1. 20. Seem's to teach Scripture is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of its own Explication 4. I say 2. No Private man whether Catholick Arian Protestant or Other can upon his own Discours or Iudgement only so Interpret a Difficil Scripture with Certainty as to Assure any that God Speaks as He Interpret's The Reason is Every Private Judgement is Fallible and lyable to Error which Truth that of the Apostle Romans 3. Omnis homo mendax Teaches But a Iudgement A Iudgement lyable to Errour cannot give certainty of the Scriptures sense Fallible and lyable to errour can with no Certainty give me that Sense wich God Reveals in a Difficil Place of Scripture Therfore I cannot Trust to it nor assuredly Ground my Faith on such an Interpretation And thus much Protestants Acknowledge for They say Neither Church nor Ancient Fathers are to be Relyed on as Infallible in their Interpretation of Scripture Therfore much less can a Minister or Lay Man Assume to Himself the Infallible Spirit of Interpreting or Resolve what a whole Vniversal Church is to Believe Alas such a man want's Certitude in what He saith he want's a Perfect knowledge of both Scripture and Antiquity never perhaps exactly perused He want's a Constant Stability for what He Judgeth this Hour He may upon after Thoughts change the next For as He is Fallible so is he also Changeable in his Iudgement 5. Yet More What Private Man Dare when he See's the Learned of contrary Religion at debate Concerning the Sense of Scripture step in amongst Them and say My Masters you are to Believe me and Acquiesce to what I judge of the Sense c. 'T is I And not You That know Gods Meaning Would not such a Thing be cast out of all Company Yet This is our very Case when a new Vpstart Puft up with his own Sentiments Tell 's either Catholick or Protestant what the Sense of Scripture is in Controverted Points of Faith And Hence I say The Catholick cannot Assure a Protestant without a better Proof then His own Opinion That the Sectary Err's in his Interpretation nor can the Protestant upon his own Assertion Remove the Catholick from the Judgement He makes of the Scriptures Sense Both As private men Catholicks and Protestants are both Fallible of them are alike Fallible if no other Certain Principle be laid hold on Here then is the Difference The Catholick for his Interpretation of such Places prudently Relyes on a firmer Ground then his variable Judgement The Protestant hath nothing to uphold the Sense He Defends But his own wavering and unsteedy Thoughts which are as changeable as Were moral certainty sufficient why is it to be more granted the Sectary then the Catholick the Man is fallible Here is the best Support for his interpretation and Faith also If he tell you he hath moral assurance or Interpret's as the Primitive Church did I answered above He only thinks so But Proves nothing Let him show that the Primitive Church ever Interpred those words The Church is the Pillar and ground of Truth as he now Interprets them If he say He Believes as his own Judgement Interpret's I grant this is too Pittifully True But what am I the better on that Account Can we Rely on a Protestants easy fallible and erroneous Judgement in so Weighty a matter At last surely he will hit On 't And say he Interprets as the Holy Ghost Suggesteth Happy man did He so But we shall find it otherwise Presently However becaus the Word is of comfort let him hear it on Gods name For it is the Resolution of our whole Question The Holy Ghost only interprets Scripture Certainly 6. I say therfore 3. No other But the Spirit of Truth the Holy Ghost Interpret's Scripture certainly Iohn 16. 23. When that Spirit of Truth shall come he will Teach all Truth But one and a most necessary Truth is to have Scripture faithfully Interpreted Therfore this the holy Ghost Teaches if he Teach all Truth Again Iohn 14. 16. He is called a Paraclete or Comforter abyding with us for ever But he is not a permanent Comforter unles he Solace as well by his Spirit of Truth mentioned Iohn 17. 19. as with other Interiour Consolation To allege more Texts obvious to all is needles The Assertion delivered in These general Terms is undoubtedly True and Protestaents I think who endlesly talk of their Interiour Spirit will not Deny it The difficulty by whom the Spirit interpret's 7. The only Difficulty which will trouble Them is Seing this Al-teaching Spirit usually Interpret's not by Private Illustrations nor Assumes every Private man to be the Oracle wherby he speak's and interpret's Seing also He leaves Scripture still as Speechles in order to its own further Explication as it was 16. hundred years agon The Difficulty I say is to find out that Oracle And a Christian Society it must be for Angels are not Interpreters wherin He Presides as Master and by it interpret's Scripture Find this Speaking Oracle out and we have enough Hear it and we hear Truth To our purpose then 8. Doth this Spirit
no Truth in that Article of Our Creed I Believe the Holy Catholick Church To Evidence further what I now Asserâ— Do no more But Forget as it were or cast out of your mind all Thought of Roman Catholicks from Luther upward to the fourth Age. Then Look About you And Consider Exclude the Roman Catholick Church Haereticks only remain well the Remainder of other Christians For that Vast Interval of Time You will find none but Professed Haereticks Schismaticks or Both as Arians Nestorians Pelagians and such a like Rabble of men Again Forget these as much as if They had never Been And only Think of the Roman Catholick Church Diffused the whole World over continued Age after Age Will you not have a Holy and Vniversal Church Presented Exclude Haereticks you yet have a glorious Church to your Thoughts Yea most assuredly And a Glorious Church too It is therfore Evident That the Roman Catholick Society was not only Necessary to make Vp the Church But was Moreover the Sole and only Essential Church of Christ as I have already Proved CHAP. III. The Pretended Reformation of Protestants is Vnreasonable if Faith in Christ Only Suffice for Saluation A more Explicit Faith is proved Necessary 1. I Must Needs have a Word more with our Adversaries upon this Subject and Note That if a General Belief in Christs Sacred Person Office and Dignity be Saving Faith enough for a Christian which some endeavour to Prove by that Text of St. Iohn 20. 31. And these Things are written That ye might Believe that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God And that believing ye might have life in his Name If such a General Faith I say makes us all as well Catholicks as Christians without more Our Protestants need not to storm at us as They do for want of True Faith For we Catholicks Agree and Believe in Christ God and Man as firmly as They do And in this one Article only may we credit them All Necessary Essentials of Christian Faith are included It is true Catholicks say a more Explicit Faith is required as I shall presently Declare But Protestants who do not May rest Protestants slight work about things not Essentials contented And withall confess That the great Coyle They have kept in Reforming Catholick Doctrin comes to no more But to a slight Pidling about Non-Essentials which for ought is yet known Hath done more hurt then good And made Things wors then They May have don more hurt then Good were Before 2. To Drive the Difficulty home I Ask seriously Whether any one Article Peculiar to this Religion as If Protestants hold their particular Doctrin necessary to Salvation other Hareticks will pretend the like Protestancy That is beside the General Belief in Christ and owning Scripture c. Be necessary to Saluation If yes Then will Arians Pelagians Donatists and other Sectaries say also what they hold Particular is also Necessary And Therfore Doctrin Above or Beyond the Belief in Christ or not Vniversal is of like Necessity If Protestants answer No or Assert that nothing Particularly held by them because not Vniversal Catholick Doctrin implyes this And if not two strange Sâ—quâ—ls undeniably follow Necessity But a Belief in Christ only Two rhings follow The One is as I have now Noted That without Fruit at all They have made a shamfull stir with their Schism in Blustering all this while about non-Essentials and petty Differences which may be Believed or Not without Danger of loosing Saluation 2. It follows That as Protestants here Acknowledge a Church so Vniversal wherin all may be Saved that Believe in Christ in like manner Any one and upon as good Reason May make it Wider and allow Saluation A large Church must be allowed of by Protestants to all whether Iews or Turks that Believe in God only without Explicit Faith in Christ Vnus Deus Vna Fides Therfore in Place of Christs Church we may have a Gods Church more large and ample erected in the world 3. You will say Scripture is most Evident for a Belief in Christ Might a Defender of the now large Imagined Church which affords Salvation to all that Believe in God Answer He would tell you That the Explicit Belief in God implyes some kind of Implicite Belief in Christ And that is enough which He is ready to Make good when you have proved your Abstract Faith in Christs Sacred Person to be Sufficient to Salvation A better Answer is Scripture most Certainly Obligeth us to Believe in Christ Explicitly But doth it leave of there and not joyntly oblige us to More necessary to Salvation then Belief in Christ only Believe other Articles also Explicitly when they are plain in Scripture And sufficiently proposed Such are the Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist c. Can we therfore after we Own these Truths Delivered in Gods Word hope for Salvation without an explicit Belief of them If so St. Iohn c. 6. 53. saith not True Vnles ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you Surely we cannot do this like Christians Unles we believe it The Belief of Sacraments necessary If no The Belief of these Sacraments constitute the Essentials of Saving Faith and so doth also the Belief of much Moral Doctrin set down in Scripture Read what St. Paul Writes Cor. 1. 6. 9. concerning the Vnrighteous Idolaters and Fornicators c. And tell me if you Own Gods Word whether the Apostle doth And of other Moral Doctrin not Disinherit all Vnbelievers of his Doctrin Therfore something more is Necessary for Christians united in one Faith to Assent to Then only to Believe in Christ 4. The true Fundamental Ground of my Assertion is This. What ever God Speaks in Scripture who never spake Idle word whether the Matter may seem to our weak Capacities little or great is after a Sufficient Proposal of the same Weight and Authority To Believe rherfore in Christs is a Fundamental Article and in one Sence Known to every One most Fundamental But to Reject or Abstract from His other Verities Revealed in Scripture or to make les Reckoning of them Becaus they Appear little to us is to Affront God And Tell him That we will Believe him so far as we pleas But no farther Wheras on the contrary side he Assures us That his Word is equally engaged in all He Saith And All Truths in Scripture are of equal Authority that his Eternal Truths whether little or great are not to be Valued of by what is spoken But by the certain Authority of him that Speak's them Hence Divins Assert and most Truely That no man can Believe so much as one Article of Christian Faith upon the Motive of Gods Revealed Testimony unles He readily Embrace All other alike as equally Proposed upon the same Authority For where we have the Same Motive we must yeild the Same
proves it in every place Of their Faith Spread abroad c. What Think ye was this not yet written Word of our Lord or the true Analogy of the Thessalonians Faith As well Dilated as Approved of What Finally was that Form of Doctrin commended in the Romans cap. 6. 17 Why Did the Apostle blame the unsetled Galatians for Being so soon Transferred into another Gospel and Denounce Anathema cap. 1. 6. if they believed an Angel Preaching contrary to his former Doctrin All these and many other Passages of Holy Writ manifestly Declare Before the writing of Scripture there was a plat-form of Christian Religion That there was Divine Doctrin Taught by the very Founders of Christianity before the Writing of Scripture There was a Plat-form of Christian Religion made by the very Apostles before they Separated Themselves and began their Preaching to several Nations And to comply with this Rule or Form of Faith Blessed St. Paul Though full of the Holy Ghost went to confer with St. Peter and the rest Gal. 2. 2. Act. 15. 36. Upon it The Apostles Held Councils yea Councils held upon that platform and Scripture writ and as some Grave and Learned Doctors Affirm by the Measure therof the Holy Scriptures were written Se the notes on the Rhems Testament Rom. cap. 12. v. 6. 3. Be it how Sectaries will There was Faith in the World before written Scripture The Apostles who taught it Had their Rule of Doctrin prescribed by a The Apostles had their Rule of Doctrin from a certain Master good Master the Holy Ghost for they Taught not Christian Doctrin upon their own frail Iudgements considered as Men. No they had ever the Guidance and Direction of this Blessed Spirit with them and as His Instruments Delivered so much as this Master according to Christs Promise gave Assistance to and neither more nor less Now those Pious Christians The first pious Christians had their Rule from the Apostles who heard this Apostolical Learning made it most certainly Their Rule Their Measure of Faith Their Analogy and Form of Doctrin Whence I argue This Form or Rule of Oral Doctrin First laid up in the Brests of the Apostles and afterward Delivered to different Nations was neither All set down in Holy Scripture for Volumes would not contain it nor All intierly lost 'T is pitty such a rich Depositum should Perish Therfore it yet Remains somewhere in safe Custody That Doctrin is yet preserved in the Church But no Place is fitter for it then that which the Fathers call Thesaurarium dives the Rich Treasury of the Church where 'T is still Preserved and Those Timothies I mean those Evangelists Those Pastors Those Doctors mentioned Ephes 4. 11. Appointed by Providence to Edify the Mystical Body of Christ The Chief Preservers of this Legacy and Noble Depositum are as Necessity Requires to impart it and make it known to the World by their Definitions Least like Children we be carried away with every Wind of fals Doctrin And The Ground of Tradition herein lyes the very Ground of all Apostolical Tradition This is not mine but the Great Vincentius Lirinensis own Doctrin now cited Where pondering that of the Apostle O Timothy Keep thy Depositum He Asks Quis Est bodie Timotheus nisi vel universa Ecclesia vel specialiter totum corpus Praepositorum c. Who is now or at this The whole Church or Rulers of it preserve this Depositum Day our Timothy But either the Vniversal Church or more specially the Whole Body of those Guides and Rulers set over it that are Themselves to have the intire knowledge of Divine Worship or to infuse it into others c Afterward Quid est hoc Depositum What is this Deposited Doctrin He Answers Id quod tibi creditum est 'T is that which is committed to Thee not that Thou Invent's that which thou hast Received not what Thou hath Fancied of thy own Head It is a thing not of Wit but of Doctrin Non usurpationis propriae not of thy Private Vse Fashion or Practise Sed The Church no Author but Keeper of Divine Doctrin publicae Traditionis But of publick and known Tradition brought to Thee handed to Thee wherof thou art not to be Author sed Custos But a Keeper and Preserver Then he goes on Depositum Custodi Catholicae Fidei Talentum c. 4. And thus you Se we have a Church a Catholik Principles wheron the Church proceed's Talent of Faith committed to it A Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin laid up in its Treasury We have a Moral body of Timothies of Teachers united with one Supream Head and Pastor That Assures us more Explicitly by its Definitions what the Ancient Deposited Doctrin is And Reclaim's us if we swerve from it We have Express Scripture that both A Mystical body of Teachers Gods written and unwritten word Sectaries want all Proves and Approves the Churches Proceeding in Doing so And this Sacred written Word faithfully Interpreted And the unwritten Deposited Word also most Infallibly Proposed is our Form our Rule and perfect Analogy of Faith O Had Sectaries but Half as much For what They boldly Assert contrary to us And because every Man is a Chutch with them They Define more then our Church Defines The Consecrated Host is Bread only a Figure of Christs Body only There are two Sacraments only Works Iustify not but Faith only c. Had I say These men but half Protestants have no Authority for their Definitions so much Authority for their Definitions How would they warble out the Notes of their Novelties But God hath Silenced them For they have neither Church nor Scripture nor Ancient Depositum nor Tradition nor Analogy nor Rule of Faith nor Motives to Make Talk only of a Nullity and an unproved Negative Religion what They Define probable nor Any other Thing to talk of But of a meer Nothing I mean the Nullity of Their unproved Negative Religion 5. What hitherto is said of Catholick Definitions made by Pope and Councils Chiefly Relates to such Matters as have been Anciently without Dispute Revealed yea And believed also Though not perhaps in order One way of Defining to all so Explicitly And this way of Defining some Divines call Propositionem That is a Reproposing of Mysteries formerly Believed whether clearly Deduced Gods unwritten word of equall Authority with his written word out of Gods Word or drawn from undoubted Tradition 'T is the very same For as the Oral Taught Doctrin of the Apostles was and is certain as Doctrin Registred in Scripture so all that really is Gods Vnwritten Word when proposed to us by the Church as such is in Substance of equal Authority and Credit with the Written For it is not the setting down of Truths in Velume or Partchment that Add's more Weight to them or makes them higher Verities And here by the way I cannot but Reflect on the
Ancient Orthodox Church of the Jewes undeniably Profess and believe this Doctrin none can gainsay the Proposition The consent of act Churches a strong Principle The Minor is as certain for no Authority under Heaven plain Scripture excepted can be greater then the Vnanimous Consent of all Curches No contrary judgement is able to struggle with so much strength Therfore put the case first you will The supposition hold's not de facto for no Fathers teach so have what I would say better Evidenced upon a supposition That more then one of the ancient Fathers should expresly Deny a Purgatory whilst all Churches teach the contrary Suppose secondly that God should command me to believe the One or Other And that which prudence evidently Tell 's me is the most What we are obliged to upon the supposition Credible I am obliged if I proceed rationally to Adhere to the Church because it is evidently the stronger Proof and to deny the Fathers Authority Therfore I am bound much more to yeild my Assent now when all Churches Affirm the Doctrin and not one Father Denies it And our very Adversaries must say as much as I prove For do not they own the Holy Book of Scripture to be Gods Word how consequently Sect 〈…〉 es must grant what is now asserted they proced I Dispute not because all Christian Churches in the world do so If therfore that Authority be warrant enough for a Bible it is as weighty for the Doctrin we stand for And this was my Conclusion Perhaps you will say Very An Objection many among the Schismatical Churches Deny a Purgatory Contra. And very many also Deny the Canon of Scripture you Admit of Doth this make the Bible of less esteem among you Know therfore We speak Here of Church Authority and not of Schismaticks receding from a Church weaken not the Churches Doctrin Schismatical Parties receding from those Respective Churches wherof they were once members Know also that the self-Opinion of such Partisans is not to be compared with the Sentiment of a whole Church against them You may Reply Again We are now forced to make use of Schismatical Churches to Defend our Doctrin of Purgatory Answer No such matter We need not their Help but say Salutem ex inimicis nostris when Adversaries agree with us in a Truth it is an Advantage to our cause witnesses upon this account are multiplyed Et vox populi vox Dei if The number of withnesses for a Truth gives some Advantage All teach as we do it is certain we profess no Erroneous Doctrin At least the Argument Ad hominem Against Sectaries hath place who value so much of the Greeks and other Heterodox Christians We care not for more Besides the Greek Church when it was most Orthodox prayed for the Dead in a state of sufferance as is already proved 3. Weigh now well the Reasons Pro and Con. Reasons pro and con are weighed All the Churches in the world Defend a Purgatory that is a place wherin souls are temporally punished No Church reputed Orthodox ever denyed it I say more No Schismatical Church under the Notion of a Church contradicted that Doctrin Therfore our professed Faith is undoubtedly certain upon this very ground or if it be not one may call the primary Articles of our Faith into Question And The Parallel All and none A clear Conviction The second Principle thus you have the first Parallel All Churches stand for our Affirmative No Church Defend's the contrary Negative of Sectaries A most Evident Conviction A powerful Proof against this Heresy 4. The second Principle is S. Austins known Doctrin De Baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 4. c. 24. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Consiliis c. What the whole universal Church hold's and was not first instituted by Councils What all believe is Apostolical Tradition but ever in use and retained Recte Creditur is rightly believed to be no other but an Apostolical Tradition But it is most certain that the whole Vniversal Church prayed for souls departed with intention to free them from a temporal Punishment The Greeks the Latins and the Ancient Hebrews Prayed so as is already proved And this had no first Rise from any Decree No Sectary can say when the Church first began to pray for the Dead suffering terment of Councils therfore it is an Apostolical Tradition which Truth Alatius further demonstrat's upon several Occasions Ponder therfore things impartially And ask now what Tradition have Sectaries for their Negative The Dead are not Assisted by Prayer They have none they are here put to silence for neither the Tradition of the whole Church nor of any part of it reputed Orthodox ever favoured Their Opinion or delivered what they teach Make then the Comparison All Tradition is for our Catholick Verity The Parallel and Nothing like Tradition for the contrary Heresy All and nothing make a strange Parallel And so it is at present 5. The third Principle Many Ancient and learned Fathers so interpret those known passages of Holy Scripture interprrted by Fathers a third Principle Scripture usually alleged for a proof of Purgatory that Scripture it self Speak's what the Church Teacheth Not one Father gives such a sense to Scripture as may Ground a positive or absolute Denial of Purgatory I cannot insist upon all Take for an instance that one passage of the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. He shall so yet be saved as by fire And know that besides those learned Notes of Bellarmin upon the Text Lib. 1. De Purg. Cap. 5. and the Bellarmin Fathers there quoted most significantly expressing the Catholick sense Leo Alatius produceth others and Page Leo Alatius 311. Cites Manuel Caleca a more Modern Author Lib. 4. Contra Graecos who Saith the place cannot be understood of Hell fire for the Apostle speak's of a fire wherby souls are saved which is not the fire of Hell but a Purging Manuel Caleca his reason fire and by this They are to pass to happines And so much the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Per which insinuates a Passing strongly signifies Thus Caleca who hath much more to our Purpose It is true some Authors think the Apostle speak's of the fire of Tribulation Others though less probably of the last burning of the No Fathers makes Scripture to Deny a Purgatory world but no Father makes the Text or any other of Scripture positively exclusive of Purgatory for This is no Consequence We are to pass through Tribulation and the fire also at the judgement Day Ergo there is no penalty to be endured in a third place Here you have an other Parallel Most learned Fathers interpret The Paralled Scripture Conformably to the Churches Doctrin not one positively favours the Contrary Opinion of Sectaries Iudge you therfore and cast as it were into a ballance the express Sentiment of Many against
Passage more of Scripture Proving Infallible Teachers is quoted 203 CHAP. X. Objections are Answered 217 THE THIRD DISCOVRS Of Sectaries Vnreasonable Proceeding CHAP. I. Protestants are Vnreasonable whilst They seemingly hold a Catholick Church Distinct from the Roman neither known nor Designable by any 231 CHAP. II. Of a late Writers Doctrin 236 CHAP. III. The Pretended Reformation of Protestants is unreasonable if Faith in Christ Only suffice for Saluation A more Explicit Faith is proved Necessary 244 CHAP. IV. The Ambiguous Discourses of Protestants concerning Fundamentals in Faith are Proved unreasonable 250 CHAP. V. An Answer to one Reply More of this subject 262 CHAP. VI. Some Few Propositions of a late Writer are briefly Examined His Discours of Fundamentals Destroy's Protestant Religion 271 CHAP. VII More of this subject Objections are Ansvvered 291 CHAP. VIII Protestants are unreasonable in the Defense of Their late Manifest and undoubted Schism 315 CHAP. IX Protestants cannot make Good Their Charge Against the Roman Catholick Church concerning causal Schism 323 CHAP. X. The Roman Catholick Church whilst Evidence comes not Against it stands Firm upon its Ancient Possessed Right This long Possession Proves the Church Orthodox 333 CHAP. XI Of a late Writers Exceptions Against our Pleading Possession 339 CHAP. XII Another Objection And whether Protestants can Acquit themselves of Schism 357 CHAP. XIII A second Argument Against this Schism Of Sectaries Cavils concerning Errours Entring the Church insensibly 362 CHAP. XIV A Word to a Few supposed and unproved Assertions Wherby some Endeavour to clear Protestants of Schism 379 CHAP. XV. More of These Authors confused Doctrin is Refuted 387 THE FOVRTH DISCOVRS Of the Churches Evident Credibility Of the Improbability of Protestancy CHAP. I. Christs Church is Proved to be no Other But the Roman Catholick Sectaries are convinced of errour 405 CHAP. II. Protestancy is an unevidenced And a most improbable Religion or rather no Religion but a meer Fancied Opinion 420 CHAP. III. A Word more of Sectaries new Mode of Arguing laid forth by Touching on one Controversy concerning the Doctrin of Purgatory 434 CHAP. IV. A Parallel of Proofs for and Against tâ—e Doctrin of Purgatory A solution to a late Adversaries Objections 452 CHAP. V. An objection proposed and solved in a Discours of another Controversy Which is the Real Presence 477 CHAP. VI. Sectaries without either Proof or Principles wrest Christs Words to an improper sense and vent an Heresy upon meer Fancy 489 CHAP. VII How differently We and Sectaries proceed in this Controversy VVhat they are to Prove 506 CHAP. VIII The Conclusion The Churches Evidence 517 SOME FEW OF THE MORE CHIEF CONTENTS OF THIS TREATISE THE FIRST DISCOVRS Of Infallible Teachers and the Motives of Credibility CHrists Church hath infallible Teachers of true Christian Religion Christs infallible Doctrin requires infallible Teachers A Doctrin that is fallible may be fals Christ sent none to teach any other Doctrin but that which may be resolved into Gods certain Revelation but such a Doctrin can neither be fals nor fallible Sectaries preach no other Doctrin but what is fallible and may be fals The Objective infallibility of Gods Word in Scripture is not ex terminis Evident and no Church as They say Ever yet told them or can tell them infallibly that it is infallible If all Pastors and Doctors may err in their delivery of Christian Doctrin God would as indifferently oblige us to believe a lye as his certain verities If God deprive all Pastors of infallible Assistance Christian Religion now stands on no more firm ground then mans weak mutable and erring opinion Gods infallible Revelation avails nothing in order to Faith unles Christians lay hold on the certainty therof by Faith which cannot be don unles that Oracle which proposeth the Revelation to all be infallible If the Proponent of a Revelation only say doubtfully I think God speaks as I preach but am not certain the Assent given to his Preaching is also doubtful and no Faith Faith surpasseth in its strength and Tendency all moral and Metaphysical certainty Though Moral certainty were sufficient for Faith yet Sectaries have not so much for Protestancy as it is reformed How Sectaries err in their search made after Religion and both weakly and improbably oppugn the Doctrin of the Catholick Roman Church Reflections upon the motives of credibility It is impossible after the establishment of true Faith in the world that God permit a fals Religion to be more clearly evidenced to reason by force of rational Motives then true Religion is manifested A fals Religion cannot equalize Gods true Religion in the evidence of prudent motives inducing to Faith No Religion hath motives founding moral certainty prerequired to Faith but the Roman Catholick Religion only Protestants have nothing like rational motives wherby Protestancy as Protestancy is proved to be so much as probable Where Mr. Stillingfleet Treats of resolving Protestants Faith He waves the Question wholy and speak's no more in behalf of Protestancy then Arianism or another Heresy Arguments drawn from Reason against Protestants upon the consideration of the Churches motives Sectaries cannot for want of prudent motives inducing to Faith convert an infidel to Christian Religion Their Religion Dishonors Christ and makes way to any new coyned Heresy THE SECOND DISCOVRS Of Scripture SCripture is a useles book in the hands of Sectaries if none as they confess Declare infallibly the sense of it in high points of Controversies Arians interpret Scripture as probably as Protestants when they oppose the sense received by the Church Sectaries make Scripture a book that proves all Religions and more significant for Arianism then Protestancy The fallacy of Protestants concerning the Interpretation of Scripture is discovered Grant no infallible Church we have no Assurance of true and interrupted Scripture Scripture might be more easily corrupted then a whole Church cheated into fals Doctrin No man can prudently suppose that God had more care to preserve Scripture uncorrupt then a Church free from errour All Substantials of Faith are not in Scripture A Learned Philosopher by his own reading Scripture cannot judge what it meanes in a hundred Passages without an Interpreter Sectaries now are in the very same case without an infallible Interpreter Sectaries in their Glosses on Scripture do nothing but add and substract from Gods Word When They Oppose the Churches sense of Scripture Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith Protestants have not one word of Scripture for their Religion as it is Protestancy The Reason of private men or of a private spirit cannot interpret Scripture The new mode of Protestants misinterpreting Scripture is amply refuted All our Sectaries endeavour is to turn Scripture off from the Catholick sense by their own fancies and then think the work don It is one thing to say and only to say it that Scriptures alleged by us prove not what we intend and another positively to prove the Doctrin contrary
to us to be grounded on Scripture In this Sectaries always fail The new mode of Sectaries interpreting Scripture destroyes Protestant Religion Here is the sequel of Sectaries We Catholicks Prove not what we assert therfore they make the contrary Doctrin an Article of their new Faith Faith cannot rely on such Negatives Of the means left by Almighty God to interpret Scripture The Holy Ghost only speaking by the Oracle of the Church Interpret's Scripture infallibly in those matters which concern the general belief of all Protestants who profess themselves to be fallible in what ever they teach are no Instruments assumed by the Holy Ghost to teach and interpret infallibly Gods Word No Sectary can judge the Church but the Church is to judge all Sectaries THE THIRD DISCOVRS Of the unreasonable proceeding of Protestants in some Chief matters of Controversy PRotestants who seemingly hold a Catholick Church before Luther larger then the Roman Catholick Church and cannot design it Proceed unreasonably and must falsify that Article of our Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church Before Luther there were no Christians in the world for a thousand years at least but Roman Catholicks and known Hereticks neither those Catholicks alone as Protestants say nor the known Hereticks nor both together constituted the true Catholick Church therfore there was no true Catholick Church on earth for so vast a time No abstract Doctrin common to all who are named Christians is sufficient to constitute Catholick Doctrin Mr. Stillingfleet is confuted and his Doctrin shewed improbable Faith in Christ only as a Redeemer is insufficient to Saluation A more explicite Faith of other particulars is proved Necessary If Catholicks and Sectaries are right in the fundamentals of Faith all the pretended Reformation of Protestants comes to a slight work about Non Essentials which may have made Things wors then before It is not the less or more weight of things revealed that makes Faith less or more valued of but the Submission we yeild to Gods Veracity which is one and of equal Authority in what ever he Reveal's Though a Distinction were granted between Fundamentals and not Fundamentals Yet Protestants cannot so much as probably sever the Fundamentals from the others by any known Principle If there be no Catholick Church owned at least infallible in Fundamentals all Faith both of Christ and Creed may perish before the world end 's And if there be such an Infallible Church in Fundamentals Sectaries ought to design it and say to whom that Spirit is granted in what subject it resides c. A Protestant who so far Denies Christs true Church That he cannot say where it is and endeavour's to reform others before he have certainty of his own half well made Reformation cannot probably go about to withdraw a prudent Catholick from his Religion Some Propositions of Mr. Stillingfleet are examined His Discours of Fundamentals destroy's Protestant Religion He Speaks of the Being of a Church and saith not precisely how much Doctrin constitutes that Being He cannot name any Orthodox Church that ever Excepted against the Articles believed by the Church of Rome He makes the Negative Articles of the English Church not to be Articles of Faith but only inferiour Truths held only in order to peace and tranquillity His Church therfore is essentially Hypocritical which may believe one thing and must profess an other Though Protestants were very Papists in hart yea and Anathematized all These Negative Articles They may be looked on as Blessed Children of this new Negative Church if their Exteriour be fairly Protestant-like He makes his Church no more an English Church then a Church of Arians and of all condemned Hereticks He saith the English Church makes no Articles of Faith but such as have the Approbation of the whole Christian world and of Rome it self The Assertion is Evidently Vntrue For no Orthodox Church no Heretical Society no Consent â—f the whole Christian World Ever taught That a Doctrin wherin all Christians agree is sufficient to Saluation When Sectaries Say Christs gave to his Disciples a Sign only of his Body This very Doctrin is either an Article of Their Faith or one of their Inferiour Truths If the first They believe that which never had the approbation of the whole Christian World much less of Rome it self If the second be granted They have no Divine Faith at all of the Blessed Sacrament The Nullity of our Adversaries ground 's is declared though the Church made new Articles of Faith If we speak rigourously The Church makes no new Articles but only declares more Explicitly what was anciently believed The Fathers call the Church a rich Treasury wherin the Depositum of Apostolical Doctrin is securely preserved The Analogy of Faith is explicated There was a Platform of Christian Religion before Scripture was Writ and the Apostles separated Themselves and Preach't to several Nations Sectaries who seemingly acquiesce in the Judgement of one or two Ancient Fathers most inconsequently reject the Authority of a Learned General Council that is of greater weight and Estimation If the Churches Definitions are therfore to be thought fallible because men declare them and all men are lyars much more are our Sectaries Novelties and Glosses on Scripture to be valued of as Fallible upon the same ground These fallible men tell me my Churches Doctrin is fallible suppose falsly it were so it is altogether as good as this very fallible Proposition is that sayes 'T is Fallible and if which is true it be infallible it is much better No man that holds His Religion fallible can probably endeavour to convert an other though the contrary Religion Professed by this other be acknowledged to be no more but fallible Much less can he persecute Him for not yeilding Assent to a fallible Religion All the Storms of persecution raised against Catholicks are not upon any account of want of Faith but for this sole cause that we will not believe one thing and force our Consciences to Profess an other Which is to say we are persecuted becaus we will not be Hypocrits The Vnreasonablenes of Protestants Schism laid forth from the VIII Chap. of the third Discours to the XV. THe Separation of Protestants from the Roman Catholick Church is as plain and manifest a sinful Schism as ever was Decryed Rebellion in a Kingdom or any Violation of a Countries Right The formal Schism of Sectaries is evident but the Causal charged on Catholicks is no more but an unproved Calumny Proofs brought to received Principles fail Sectaries whilst they make the Roman Church to be the cause of their Formal Schism The supposed errours charged on the Roman Catholick Church by Sectaries are not like the first Principles in nature Evident ex terminis and therfore must be proved by a Discours grounded on certain Principles We Licence Sectaries in their Discours against us to make use of all Imaginable sound Principles Scripture Fathers Tradition or what They pleas and only exclude
THE PREFACE TO THE READER THe Books are almost innumerable occasion'd by an unhappy Heresy that in the last age infected Germany and after like a Leprosy Overspread the greatest part of our Northen Countries Too many are writ by Those who stile themselves Protestants or of the Reformed Religion not to speak of the Subdivisions as Arminians Brownists Anabaptists or of their Followers which crumble into as many Sects as men Of These we have VVriters who with no little Animosity inveigh bitterly one against an other Yet because Self-interest will have it so All of them closely joyn in a Foul dishonorable League against an Ancient Mother Church That made them and their Progenitors Christians This hath stirr'd up the pen of many a learned man not so much to confute their weak Discourses as positively to Assert Truth which cannot be shaken and to Vndeceive a poor sort of seduced People who easily gain'd by sleek VVords and the Specious Pretenses of some who have told untruth so long that at last they almost Believe it Themselves insensibly fall into errour To Vnbeguile these deluded Souls more I have here cast my Mite also into the Treasury of these learned labours and writ this Treatise VVherin I both lay forth the Evidence of our Roman Catholick Religion upon undoubted Grounds and make it likewise manifest That Protestancy as Reformed which is only a fallible taught Doctrin cannot be Resolved into Gods Infallible Revelation and thersore is no part of Christian Religion But a meer Opinion only Vpheld by Fancy I undertook the small work you here se upon this occasion About a year since so much it was when I writ this Preface A friend sent me a Book with a surly imperious Title The Nullity of the Romish Faith or a blow at the root of the Romish Church By Mr. Matthew Poole printed anno 1666. and only desired me to make a few Observations upon an Appendix by the same Author against a Converted Gentleman Curiosity ledd me on to read the whole book where finding little worth the Answering I laid it aside for two or three months till I was urged again to return some short Answer to the Appendix But while this busines gave me a little entertainment VVe here though at distance Heard a noise of a Rational Account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion c. by Mr. Edward Stillingfleet The book I saw but lately yet some Parcels of his Doctrin found the way to me by several Reports and Letters also VVerupon I laid Mr. Pooles Appendix aside And was longer in this Treatise then I intended or was indeed necessary to Answer the Appendix which yet may have an Answer timely enough By the way as far as sure Principles can Guide one and a few Glances at Mr. Pooles Doctrin will reach to I refute some weak ground 's of His Nullity which is as much as it deserves That of Mr. Stillingfleet Merit 's more I mean a larger Refutation Though to speak Truth it is too tediously long and both sayes very much and very little Much in Generalities and cavilling at our Catholick Faith But little in giving any Account of Protestant Religion as 't is now reformed which yet was the only Thing I sought for but found not in his writings as I have often noted in this Treatise Had I had his book sooner or more time I would have refuted some more chief points in it but I hope Those have it in hand that will bring the Author to a better account for he who first Tell s amiss must count twice before He make a Right reckoning I wave all along as much as may be an unnecessary Repetition of known Authorities drawn from Scripture and Fathers for that were Actum agere and endeavor to ground my Discours upon undoubted Principles And my chief aym is as I novv insinuated to make it evident That Protestancy built upon Fancy stand's tottering vvithout the Support os any acknovvledged Principles and consequently Fall's of it self To speak more plainly VVhen Sectaries go about either to impugn the Roman Catholick Doctrin or to establish their Ovvn They give you nothing that look's like a sure ovvned Principle but quite contrary tire you out vvith long loos Discourses which driven on to the very last at most come to no more but to Guesses only vveak Conjectures and the unproved Thoughts of those vvho make them In a vvord They never fall on Principles nor can make their own Doctrin good upon any better Argument then by only saying It is True or cavilling at ours As if 't were the way for a man to Prove Himfelf honest by saying his neighbour is not so or enough to Establish Their House built upon sand to Assert that ours once certainly setled on a Rock is not Th' ancient building it was but hath been repayr'd and otherwise Adorn'd If all this were true as it is most fals what 's their House the better that 's still upon sand Or their Religion sounder that stand's Vnprincipl'd without Scripture Church or Reason I only say thus much in a Preface and prove it afterward in the following Discourses which I was advised to write in Latin having now more use of That I may thank my long Absence from England for it then is allowed me of our Mother Tongue But sapientibus insipientibus debitor sum I desire to satisfy all and owe as much to the Illiterate of my dear Country as to the Learned and therfore shall Expose this Treatise in plain English for I can speak no better and hope upon that Account to find the Readers easier Pardon If I often Speak improperly or now and then break Priscians head in English Sometimes as the matter requires I am forc'd to make use of words that may seem harsh as Toyes Fancies Trifles not worth the Ansvvering c. But 't is impossible for me to use other language if I 'll call things by their right names and give the vvorld to understand vvhat they are Smoother termes would look like Mockery whilst Sectaries use harsher rather then Civility Believe what you will I Profess seriously all I say is without Passion or Design to reflect Personally upon our Adversaries whom I pitty and pray for having no intention to reproach them but to Reprove Heresy To rail at any but to convince by Reason But I keep you too long at the Door open and read without Prejudice and if you be not satisfied with what I write of Charity give me timely notice for my dayes are almost Don. In the other world I can make no Answer but to Almighty God for the sincerity of my undertaking wherby if any one soule reap benefit I have enough if none do so my comfort is that He who knowes my good intention will be my ample Recompence though infinitly above my desert Farewel A NECESSARY ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE READER 1. MAy it pleas Any one to read this Treatise And either seek to profit by it
nothing probable for an Objection as soon solved as seen is far off from the nature of a sound Principle We say therfore if to pray for one an other Here on Earth lessens not Christs Honor there is no danger of lessening it by our recours had to the Saints in Heaven now in a most Glorious and happy Condition And thus no less a Doctor then S. Hierom Adversus vigilantium Paris print 1609. pag. 590. Solves the Difficulty at those words Dicis in libello tuo c. Thou Vigilantius saith in thy Book that whilst we live we may pray for one another but after Death no Prayer is heard for Any Here is the Objection Mark S. Hieroms Answer Si Apostoli Martyres adhuc in corpore constituti possunt orare pro ceteris quando pro se debent esse soliciti quanto magis post coronas victorias triumphos If the Apostles and Martyrs yet living in a mortal body can pray for others when they are solicitous for themselves much more can they do that Charity after their Crowns Victories and Triumphs He goes on Vnus homo Moyses c. That one Moyses obtained pardon for thousands Exod. 32. And the first Martyr S. Stephen living prayed for his Persecutors Act. 7. Et postquam cum Christo esse coeperint minus valebunt And what shall they be able to do less now when they are glorious with Christ in Heaven Meliorque erit vigilantius cams vivens quam ille leo mortuus And can thou Vigilantius a living Dog be better then that dead Lyon He alludes to S. Paul that prayed for others whilst he lived Tu vigilans dormis dormiens scribis I tell thee Vigilantius waking thou sleep's and sleeping writ's these things against prayer to Saints Thus S. Hierom. And not only S. Austin lib. 22. de Civit. c. 8. to omit innumerable others Approves the Doctrin but that worthy Bishop also S. Greg Nyssen in his Oration of S. Theodore Martyr Paris print 1615. page 1011. and 1017. confirms the Practice of it Pray for us saith S. Gregory addressing himself by an earnest Petition to S. Theodore when the Scythians threatned a war to the Country make intercession to him who is our common King and Lord. As you are a souldier fight for us and defend us And as a Martyr speak freely for your fellovv servants here A few lines after And if more Prayer be needful assemble together the vvhole Quire of your Brethren Martyrs and joyntly intercede for us Put S. Peter in mind move S. Paul and the beloved Disciple of our Lord S. Iohn that they be solicitous for the Churches vvhere once they vvore Chains passed dangers and finally Dyed Say now what lessening is here of Christs Honor by the prayer of this Ancient Saint and most learned Prelate Or what answer can be returned to these three Authorities The other Difficulty is as forceles For if Scctaries can explicate how the blessed Soul of our Saviour in Heaven hear's our Prayers which I hope they will not Deny I speak of his Sanctified created Soul all Difficulty ceaseth in the present Controversy How They hear is opinion se Bell. cap. 20. n. Argumentum tertium But That they Hear is certain Doctrin 7. Now if Sectaries tell us They can so explicate These Fathers as to make their words insignificant to our Purpose I would first learn what can be said to S. Hierom S. Austin and S. Gregory now cited But this is not all for I am to assure them further That their explications when contrary to the Doctrin of a whole Church as also to the obvious sense of either Scripture or Fathers quoted by us are so far off from being Principles that they merit not the name of mean probabilities which Truth is more amply Declared Discours 4. c. 4. n. 8. 9. Where I prove that no Interpretation of Sectaries can be Allowed of unles it rely on an extrinsick Ground much surer then His Gloss is that interpret's which therfore must be plain Scripture The undoubted consent of Fathers Vniversal Tradition or such like convincing Principles Hence I said when the Catholick Interprets a dubious or Difficil Passage He never makes his Gloss to be the ultimate Proof of his Doctrin But supposeth that proved by stronger Principles distinct from His Interpretation All is contrary with the Sectary who makes His Gloss to do all to be the last and surest ground of his Opinion without the Support of any better Proof then his own word is And thus much is evident in other Controversies now Debated between us as you will see Hereafter 8. From this want of clear Principles all the too manifest and most Discernable Faint proceeding of our Adversaries in matters now controverted shewes it self so openly that one with half an Eye may Discover it It is From want of Principles That they now begin to be weary of Protestancy and hold that a Faith Common to all Sectaries is sufficient to Saluation if this may Pass They need not herafter to stand more for Protestancy then Arianism or for any other condemned Heresy For the same Principles were there Any would make both Sects equally Credible Hence it also is That you have them ever Cavilling at our Religion and 'T is the easiest thing in the world to Find fault Yea and to cavil at the verities of Holy Scripture it self you se Arians do so but still you find them wanting in that which concern's them most which is to bring their Novelties to the grounds of either Scripture or any Ancient Church Doctrin Herin they are as mute as Fishes and say not a word It is from want of Principles That when they explicate a Council or Father alleged against them They are tediously long about little that is in relating the circumstances to be as They would have Them but whether they hit right is ever a matter of Dispute and nothing like a received Principle From hence it also is That when They make such and such Doctrins to be Inâ—oâ—ations Praying to Saints Purgatory or what els you will The very last ground They standon comes to nothing but Negative Arguments weak Conjectures blind Guesses Fancy and meer Vncertainties It is From the want of Principles That when we produce undeniable History for innumerable Miracles wrought in our Church An odd Answer is at hand They cannot believe them as if forsooth Their Parole or meer Vnbelief had force enough to make null all that is writ of this subject by most approved Authors From want of Principles it is That they ever place against our clear Authorities no more but meer uncertain Testimonies And pick out of our Writers all they can pilfer for Their Advantage wheras if they had a good cause in hand and sound Principles to rely on They should beat down the Doctrin of long standing Church 〈◊〉 by undeniable Proofs taken from Scripture Councils and consent of Fathers wherof more presently From hence it also
of them certainly knows what he sayes They have Christs Promises of a Spirit of Truth ' abyding with some Christian Teachers find them where they can for ever to the end of the world but now They must say because all Pastors are fallible That Christ keep 's not his word if all may deceive and Teach both fallible and false Doctrin Finally they must own such Believers as S. Paul mentioneth Who receive the word of God as it Truly is the word of God but have not one Pastor or Doctor that dare show his face and say he Teaches this word infallibly Yet infallible Believers and infallible Teachers seem neer Correlatives the one if Faith come by Hearing staggers without the other and Infallible Hearers of Gods word suppose Infallible Teachers methinks when the Apostle saith Rom. 10. 14. None can hear without a Preacher he supposeth as well the Preacher instructing infallible as the Hearer infallibly instructed CHAP. II. The Infallible Doctrin of Christ necessarily requires infallible Teachers 1. THe proof of my Assertion is more fully declared Chap. 4. n. 6. and relyes on this Principle Infallible Doctrin taught only fallibly under that notion of fallibly taught Doctrin is not the Doctrin of Christ We are of God saith Scripture Iohn Epist 1. cap. 4. v. 6. He that knowes God hear's us he that is not of God heareth us not Hereby we know the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of errour Which is to say in other Terms He that hear's an infallible Teacher hath the Spirit of Truth and he that hear's not an infallible Teacher wants this Spirit of Truth Again Epist 2. v. 9. Every one that recedes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and remains not in the Doctrin of Christ hath not God c. But every one that Hears only a fallible Teacher easily recedes and remains not in the Doctrin of Christ Therfore he hath not God nor the Spirit of Truth in him 2. Upon these grounds I Argue further Christ Doctrin infallible in it self is either now taught infallibly by some Pastors lawfully sent or fallibly If the first we must own infallible Teachers of this infallible Doctrin If the second That is if Christs infallible Doctrin be taught only Fallibly ex parte Docentis it followes evidently first That though God speaks infallibly yet no man hath certainty of what he saith It followes secondly That such a fallible Teaching of Christs Doctrin may be cavilled at and disputed against For Doctrin taught Fallibly may be cavilled at and disputed against all Doctrin taught fallibly and which by force of its Proposal or merit of the Doctrin may deceive and be false is lyable to cavil and dispute Therfore this Doctrin may be also cavilled at and disputed against It followes thirdly That really Christs Doctrin perchance perverted by a fallible and false Delivery may not be Taught at all The reason is No other Doctrin is or can be taught but what is fallible and may be false but Christs Doctrin is nor fallible nor can be false Therfore that Doctrin which is only Taught fallibly as it is so delivered is none of Christs infallible Doctrin Consequently if any man would now utterly abjure all the taught Doctrin of the Christian world he might do it without being an Haeretick I prove it He who only abjures and Denies Fallible Doctrin which may be false neither abjures nor denies Christs Doctrin nor any Christian Verity which cannot be false But all Christian Doctrin that can be Taught Sectaries say is Fallible and may be False Therfore he who Denies such a fallible taught Doctrin denies not Christs Doctrin and cannot be upon that account an Haeretick You will say He who Denies all Christian taught Doctrin certainly Denies some of those Objective Verities which are revealed in Gods Word and therfore is an Haeretick Very true if he be sure That his Teacher delivers those Verities infallibly But our Protestants say Because all Teachers Infallible Doctrin taught only fallibly implyes no Denial of Christs infallible Verities are fallible none can have that Assurance from them or any Therfore their Doctrin as it is taught fallibly may be cavilled at yes and denied also without the guilt of Haeresy The reason is Whoever only Denies the fallible Teaching of infallible Doctrin yet not known for such Denies not the Objective infallible Doctrin in it self but the Formal fallible Delivery of it and this he may boldly say is none of Christs Doctrin 3. The substance of what I would here expresse may No assurance can be had from men that Teach Christs Doctrin fallibly perhaps more plainly be reduced to Form thus A society of men who can do no more but only Teach fallible Doctrin which may be false can assure none that they Teach Christs infallible Doctrin which cannot be false But all societies of Christians can do no more but Teach fallible Doctrin which may be false for all Churches all Councils all Fathers all Papists all Protestants and Mr. Poole with them are as they say Fallible in their Feaching Therfore not one amongst them can assure any that he Teaches or Delivers the infallible Doctrin of Christ I say That he Teaches for if we meet with a Simplician That tel's us He builds his Faith and Religion not upon any Preachers talk but on the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture I answer Unles Objective revealed Verities no sufficient ground of infallible Faith he first learn of some Infallible Oracle what Scripture exactly speak's in a hundred controverted places he shall never by his own poreing on a Bible either arrive to the depth of God true meaning or derive infallible Faith from those Objective revealed Verities The reply supposeth That all Truth couched in Scripture is as easily understood with the unclasping of a Bible as the sun is seen at noon-day If so Ministers hereafter may for the most of men shut their books stop their mouths and preach no more 4. Some yet perhaps will say One may preach the infallible Doctrin of Christ though himself be fallible in the Delivery of it which feem's manifest for every Catechist or Preacher though he delivers the infallible Doctrin of Christ yet delivers it not infallibly why therfore may not Ministers in England teach as those do infallible Doctrin though ex parte subjecti docentis they Teach it fallibly I answer first Ministers in England have no Infallible Church to recurre to in case They erre for their whole Community is fallible The Catholick Preacher hath a sure Oracle to rely on an Infallible Church that unbeguil's him if he swerve from Truth which is a mighty Advantage and a great The Advantage of an infallible Church Disparity in the present question Now if you say Sectaries may as well rely on infallible Scripture for their Direction as we do on an Infallible Church I deny the Supposition and shall shew hereafter That not so much as one Article of Protestancy
can be proved by Scripture Again No man call's into doubt the Objective Verities contained in Scripture known as such But here is the difficulty whether the new invented Interpretations made on Scripture by Sectaries be true or false and if false They have no Infallible Oracle to amend the Errour as the Catholick Teacher hath 5. I answer secondly S. Paul methinks layes foundation enough to solve the Objection Rom. 10. 15. How shall They preach unles they he sent Why therfore may we not assert That every Catechist every Preacher that hath a lawful Mission and is sent by the Infallible Church to preach Christs sacred Doctrin if he preach that Doctrin which Christ and his Church approves of is then under that Notion of a Member conjoyned with an Infallible Church Infallible in his Teaching Though all vulgar taught Doctrin is not such Now Ministers who are unsent men and therfore divorced from this infallible Moral Body cannot but talk as they do Fallibly 6. I would not have any to mistake my meaning Know therfore first I do not say That this or that Pastor purely considered as a Pastor is infallible in all he Teaches Nor secondly That either Councils assembled or particular Bishops are by any intrinsick inherent quality elevated to a state of Insallibility But thirdly I affirm That God who according to Christs promise will ever guide his Church in Truth cannot permit All the Pastors and Teachers in it to swerve from Carholick Doctrin For if so The whole Catholick Church might erre which is contrary to Pastors lawfully sent teach Infallible Doctrin infallibly Christs promise Hence I say fourthly Every Bishop or Pastor though not Personally infallible yet when he is sent to preach Christs Doctrin and complies with his Duty That is when he Teaches Nothing but what he hath commission to teach in the Name of God and his Church such a man I say considered as a nember conjoyned with an Infallible Church in the Delivery of Christs Verities may be sayd to teach infallibly For upon this supposition he doth not only speak Truth as it were by chance An Haeretick may do so But more as he speak's in the name of God and his Church He teaches as the Church teacheth that is infallibly The Reason is Manifest in Catholick Principles Because the Holy Ghost ever Assists some Pastors in the Catholick Church to teach true Christian Doctrin and 't is as certain that Those he Assists teach it infallibly Therfore a Pastor Prelate or Bishop that Delivers Christs Doctrin as is now declared teaches Infallibly You will say This Pastor or that Bishop may trough malice ignorance Objections answered or both swerve from Truth I grant it but then he teaches not as one of Gods Ministers not complies with his Mission You will say again Thus much at least followes out of this Principle That a Bishop when he Teaches as lawfully sent is at that instant as infallible as the Pope when he Defines in Council or to speak in Mr. Pooles homely language hath a Pope in his belly I answer Every faithful Bishop may have as Infallible Faith as the Pope what wonder is it therfore if when he Teaches as both Pope and the Church teach he be then sayd to Teach infallibly Yet there is a great Disparity between the Pope and particular Pastors Bishops c. For no particular Bishop can make any new Declarations of Faith obligeing all Christians to believe The Pope with a Council can do so No particular Bishop precisely considered as such is infallible For he may Teach to day as one lawfully sent and to morrow erre by ignorance yea and Malice also But the Pope considered as Pope and Christs Vicar on Earth can never Define in Councils but Infallibly and therfore his Assistance is in a higher measure certain and supereminently Infallible 7. The last ground of this Doctrin which great Devines The whole Church consisting of Pastors c. is infallible assert is That the whole Church of Christ which consists of Pastors and Hearers of Teachers and Learners Antecedently to Pope and Council Conciliarily assembled together is infallible For the Promises of Christ ever Assisting the Church Primarily belong to this whole moral Body which cannot erre Against this Church Hell gates shall never prevail with it The Spirit of Truth shall re main foor ever c. Now this Infallibility cannot but remain and stand fast in the members of this mystical Body not in Pastors only for it avails little that These teach infallibly if none learn their infallible Doctrin nor in Hearers only because they learn not infallible Doctrin without a Teacher Infallibility then accompanies both Pastors and Hearers How Pastors and Hearers are infallible As therfore These believing Hearers conjoyned in Faith with this infallible Church are under That notion infallible no Catholick can deny it so likewise these Believing Pastors as conjoynd in Doctrin with this unerring Church and Teaching what the Church Teaches under that notion are infallible in their Doctrin Yet as I now intimated there is a great Difference between the Representative Church of a Pope and Council lawfully and Conciliarily assembled and particular Pastors Particular Christians and Particular Churches For the Representative Particular Pastors may erre Church because of the powerful Assistance of the Holy Ghost cannot swerve from Truth in its Definitions but this Pastor that Teacher that Particular Church may swerve altogether cannot though under the notion of a Pastor sent to teach the Infallible Doctrin of Christ and his Church he Teaches infallibly Separate him from this moral Body he looseth Assistance and cannot but teach Fallibly though he speak Truth by chance consequently he is none of Christs Teachers for Christ never impowred any to teach Fallible Doctrin that may be false You will say separate a Minister from the Truth of the Gospel and he is also no Teacher Alas he separat's himself For he hath no Mission to preach as he doth and moreover Professeth that he can teach nothing infallibly But of this more afferward In the interim 8. To cut of all reply to the Argument I propose it thus No man that is by nature lyable to errour or wants God's special Divine Assistance in his teaching and Positively renounceth all infallible Societies of Christian Teachers can teach with certainty Christs Infallible Doctrin But all men now at least in being are by nature lyable to errour want this special Assistance in their Teaching and must as Mr. Poole will have it positively renounce all infallible Societies of Christian Teachers Therfore no man can Teach with certainty or deliver the Infallible Doctrin of Christ The Major is evident For he who by nature is lyable to errour and hath not infallible Men wanting infallible Assistance to teach cannot deliver Christs Doctrin infallibly Assistance to Teach infallibly or wants the Guidance of an infallible Society to Direct him may as easily erre and
Christianity to lean and rely only upon mans weak timid staggering and errable conceptions The proof is evident for either it relyes on God and so is infallible or upon Humane reason and therfore as This is various Religion cannot but be changeable Let then the world judge I appeal to no other Tribunal whether Christians can be satisfied with this comfortles Doctrin All they can now learn from any Christian Pastor touching Religion hath only mans weak Thought and Reason for it but no certain Assurance that God speaks by these Pastors Because all and every one of them left to themselves are fallible 3. I must prosecute this matter further wherefore Man too feeble to preserve Christian Doctrine in its purity I say this Truth boldly It is above mans power and policy weak and errable in his Conceptions constantly and unchangably to support or carry on Age after Age the profound Doctrin of Christ in its Primitive purity without Divine Assistance Wit alone dazeled as we see in the search of the most obvious things in nature is insufficient either rightly to Penetrate these high Mysteries of grace or with certainty to conuey them unto us in that exact sense as God once delivered them The reason hereof is drawn from the sublime Excellency of Christian Religion Because of its sublime Excellency which being as all know a Doctrin of Gods own incomprehensible Wisdom a Communication of his deepest Secrets cannot but transcend the force of humane knowledge it cannot but lye as it were in a region above the reach of weak Reason only and stand at a great distance from our fallible Discourses Whence I argue thus All light and knowledge which flow from a fallible Power and capacity cannot but be answerable to such a capacity id est Deficient uncertain and Fallible But all the light and knowledge which Christians now have from either Church or Pastors concerning this sublime Doctrin of Christ and Gods revealed Verities in Scripture flow and are derived from no other but from a fallible capacity which is mans errable and weak understanding and not from Gods infallible Assistance who say our Protestants hath withdrawn infallibility from the Church Ergo This taught Doctrin cannot but be Deficient uncertain Fallible Doctrine is not Christs and Fallible Grant this and none can prudently rely on it none can know by any Principle whether it be true or false none finally can own it for Christs certain Doctrin Rob therfore the Church of its proper Dote which is Divine Assistance take from it the Spirit of infallibility Cancel that Truth of the Gospel I have prayed for thee Peter that thy Faith fail not Destroy that impregnable Rock wheron Christianity is founded Matt. 15. Tu es Petrus c. Though all the Pastors in the world were Salomons for wit Austins for learning Gregories for vigilancy Chrysostoms for eloquence yet they would be too weak feeble and fallible Instruments either rightly to illuminate Wit alone too weak to tamper with Religion us by the force of wit or Learning only concerning those High Verities revealed in Scripture or exactly to Preserve them in their first candor without change and Alteration Alas might wit alone tamper with Gods Truths at pleasure might it turn Religion into as many Forms or shapes as weak Reason often conceives This too unskilful Master would as Fancies and judgements are various now build now destroy now add now subtract now make now marr and bring in more confusion into Christinianity then the wisest men are able to redresse And 4. Thus much we se evidently not only in the old Mans with the cause of errours Philosophers who led on by their weak Discours and guesses grosly mistook in their Opinions concerning Beatitude but in some learned Fathers also witnes a Examples of it Tertullian and Origen For These two great wits of the world because they left the Guidance of the Church and relyed too much on their private Judgements fell as we know into deplorable errours But most of all this misery is visible in all condemned Haereticks as Arians Pelagians and Nestorians witty and learned enough but Because wit too boldly entred into Divine Mysteries and meddled with matters above its strength these men lost themselves and here was the sole cause Gods special Assistance preserves his Curch from errour of their Ruin and falling from Truth Whence I conclude contrary to Protestants who have nothing to support Religion but their own weak and errable Conjectures That unles Gods gracious Providence particularly Protect his Church and by special Assistance Preserve it from errour The very best of us all though never so learned left to our weak conjectures and fallible Discourses might most easily become Arians Nestorians Pelagians Protestants Socinians now Christians now no Christians or what you will Protestancy and all Haeresy which stand topling on no firmer ground then meer conjectures are lead the way to these Downfalls to no Religion or any Religion as Fancy best likes 5. To prevent therfore this great Evil the wise Providence Gods Providence over his Church of God who well foresaw mans weaknes and Instability first Delivered his own eternal Truths infallibly none doubts of this Next he caused these Truths to be taught infallibly by the first Masters of the Gospel his chosen Disciples here of also there is no doubt with our modern men Moreover Because his real Intention was That not only the Primitive Christians should exactly receive those revealed Verities from infallible Teachers but others also in ensuing ages for All souls were providently cared for His infinite Goodnes established a visible Catholick Church whose Head and Pastors guided not by humane wit or Policy but by Assistance derived from the Holy Ghost should by virtue of so special grace Teach Truth infallibly and preserve poor souls from errour to the end of the world Without this Addition Preserves Christianity from ruine of a perpetuated Assistance as well in order to the Later as first Believers providence would not have done its work compleatly Christianity ere this day too unsteedily built would have fallen to Ruin and as often alrered from it self in the space of 1667. yeares as our Sectaries have done in this last hundred A more spiteful Blow therfore cannot be given to God a greater Chimaera cannot be thought on then to grant as Sectaries do that his All seing wisdom first founded a Church upon infallible Teachers and next to spoile all with this ungodly Assertion viz Afterward when Christians as much stood in need of infallible Pastors for their Direction because of emergent Haeresies then it was He withdrew Assistance from them Abandoned his charge and left a whole Church to the wavering timid and uncertain Sentiments of meer erring men who altogether because by nature fallible might as easily without this superiour grace of infallibility have taught grosse errours as the Verities of Christian Religion This sequele followes
from our Protestants Principles where you se enough I say it once more of their great sin and Haeresy CHAP. IV. Replyes to these Arguments are answered 1. ONe perhaps may be God surely will never permit all the Pastors of Christianity to erre and deceive the world at least this is no Consequence They may erre Ergo they do and will actually erre for many things may be which never will be I answer and many things actually happen Answer to Objections which were never suspected would be and why may not this diffused Errour be one of them who knows the contrary In Protestants principles we have the greatest Presumption imaginable for this actual errour of all For they say That ample and ancient Church of Rome and all condemned Haereticks with it erred set then these aside it is impossible to design plainly such Christian Teachers as never de facto erred 2. The very possibility yes and facility also of All falling into Errour makes the actuality of it fearfully doubtful now men had been mad to loose both Lives and Goods to dye ignominiously on Gibbets for any doubtful and uncertain Doctrin The Apostle put other thoughts in the primitive Martyrs hearts other words in their mouths Scio cui credidi certus sum I know who I believe and am certain No Hearers therfore can certainly rely on any doubtful and uncertain Religion 2. The second reply Admit that all Christian Pastors Second Reply teach erroneous Doctrin yet no great mischief followes for Those who hear them are either conscious of the Falsity And if so they are not to believe their Teachers or They erre invincibly which is a blameles Errour and Therfore cannot in justice be held an Offence The first part of the Reply supposes some instructed Christians wiser then all their Teachers together which is an Impertinency never heard of The second touches not the difficulty for here we blame not such as may perhaps invincibly erre But say That the blame goes higher and is unworthily cast on God who obliges Christians to believe the Pastors of a Catholick Church and yet gives them such disabled ones that all of them may erre universally and teach Doctrin contrary to his revealed Truths Here lyes the mystery of iniquity upheld Protestants Mystery of iniquity by Protestants and the uglines of it appears in this wrethched Assertion God will have me to believe a Catholick Church yet this whole Catholick Church that is all the They cast blame upon God Pastors all the Councils all the Fathers Doctors and Prelates of this Church may teach me such false Doctrin as God never intended I should learn They may if fallible teach us that Christ is not God that Heaven is not a place of Eternal Happines nor Hell an abode of Eternal torments Such Haeresies have been spread by Those who went under the name of Christians and why may not I beseech you all Christian Pastors abuse the world as much if Gods gracious ordinance concerning the Churches infallibility faill us 3. A third reply It is one Thing to teach Truth Teaching Truth infallibly and another to teach it infallibly Put therfore the case That Almighty God foresaw from Eternity that though all Pastors of the Church potentiâ antecedente antecedently might erre yet some at least ex suppositione consequenti or consequently would not erre but teach Christian Verities faithfully Suppose I say only thus much We have sufficient Assurance of Truth actually taught in the world without that Previous infallible Assistance we plead for which seems here useles for if either man or Angel Delivers a Verity it matters nothing whether it arise from a Fallible or infallible cause Our Faith therfore hath strength enough if it rely on Truth actually Taught though the Teacher wants infallibility I answer If God foresaw that all the Pastors of his Church would not erre or teach false Doctrin This Verity is either revealed to Christians as a Divine Truth or no if not we make that revealed which is not revealed and consequently can ground no Assurance on it if it be revealed and known to us this very Revelation viz All the Pastors of the Church shall not erre is an undoubted Principle which assented to by true Faith is our Security Because such a Faith supposeth the contrary Actual errour of all essentially excluded by virtue of Gods Revelation For it is impossible that God tell us this Truth All the Pastors of my Church shall not erre in any age and yet in sensu composito of this Revelation permit them to erre universally Observe in one Instance the security we have by force of such a Revelation 4. Suppose that God had revealed to Isaac that his Father Abraham would not sacrifice him and withall that Isaac firmly believed that Verity He had been as indubitably secured from dying at that time as if Abrahams hands had been tyed in chains or wholy made impotent to give a fatal blow Now mark the Application As Gods Eternal Prevision of Abrahams not taking Isaacs life away Antecedently supposed the cause therof actually also foreseen antecedently I say in a foregoing signe os nature so likewise it is in our present case when from Eternity he knew that all the Pastors of his Church would not actually err and revealed this Truth in time His All-seing wisdom Previously pro priori signo rationis foresaw also the total cause of their actual not Erring which cause as I have already proved was not the power of mans weak variable and mistaking Reason But the most certain Principle of Gods special and Divine Assistance When therfore God as the Objection supposeth revealed that Verity All shall not err he did not only by virtue of his Revelation impossibilitate the contrary universal errour bur warranted more that all of them because prevented by special Assistance could not erre And this is what Scripture Energitically tells us of Hell gates not prevailing against the Church of Christs Being with the Church to te end of the world wherof more hereafter In the interim you see that Christian Christian Faith relies on Truth taught by an Infallible Oracle Faith doth not only rely on a meer contingent or hap hazard Delivery of Truth but on Truth taught by an Assisted and infallible Oracle which All must assert or grant that although Christ himself by a supposed Impossibility had been fallible in No certitude of Truth had Christ and his Apostles taught it Fallibly his Preaching or the Apostles likewise fallible in Their writting Scripture and only because lyable to errour had delivered Gods Verities contingently by chance Christian Religion might yet have stood as firme and unshaken as now it is which is a horrid and an unheard of Haeresy 5. A fourth reply We cannot prove by good reason if we set aside some ambiguous Passages of Scripture which only seemingly say the contrary that the immediate Proponent of true certain Christian Faith Catholiks
time any infallible Church on earth even in fundamentals All therfore we have now to Direct us is only the book of Scripture without other Proponent and every mans private Reason Contra. It is Evident That Scripture makes no man infallible both Arians and Others read it and yet grosly err in Points most Essential Deny therfore a Church unerrable in Essentials and say boldly that as Arians have already erred in some Fundamentals so others might before this day have wholy erred and outed both Christ and Creed with every Article of Christian Religion For weak Reason alone is insufficient to Preserve Christianity in its Purity as I have shewed above wherof also more hereafter CHAP. V. A word with some later Sectaries concerning Moral certainty 1. HEre we come to examin the other part of the Objection proposed above n. 5. And thus Mr. Stilling fleet some later men Discours concerning the certainty of Christian Religion They say first and most truely That the ultimate Motive wheron Faith relyes is Gods infallible Testimony with all That none can question the fallibility of this Revealed Testimony when it is Sufficiently proposed and made known to us The only Question therfore is How it comes to be made known or discovered in order to those things Protestants Doctrine about Moral Certainty which are immediatly Revealed They say secondly Moral certainty may be a sufficient foundation For the most firm assent if the matter to be believed be the infallible Truth of a Doctrin upon sutable Evidence Though we have now but Moral Certainty of that Evidence The Assent may yet be firm to such a Doctrin as infallible They say thirdly Moral Certainty may be as great as Mathematical and Physical supposing as little reason to doubt in moral things as to their natures as in Mathematical and Physical as to Theirs Here briefly is their Doctrin Some further Explications of it will perhaps more opportunely have place while we make our Exception against it And 2. My first Exception is These Authors do not sufficiently explain what they would have here understood by Moral certainty wherin there is a great Latitude One Degree of it excludes all Rational doubt Degrees of Moral Certainty And thus we say He who never saw Constantinople may yet upon the indubitable Testimony of so many witnesses who have seen it affirm without fear There is or hath been such a Citty in the world An other Degree of this Certitude reaches not so high As we se in School Opinions Some Philosophers Tell you it is Morally certain That sublunary Bodies as Fire and water are composed of Matter and Form That Accidents are really distinct from Substance and Motion yet now there are some that deny it and hold as they think a contrary Philosophy more Morally certain Therfore when we come to apply this Moral certainty to Disputable matters we do seldom or never agree about it I doubt not but These very men we now treat with will say what They judge God knowes that That part of Protestant Religion wherin it differ's from all Christians is upon Moral Certainty True yet the Rest of the world opposes them and Avouches it hath not so much as one Degree of Probability for it That therfore which is here meant by Moral certitude must if these Authors speak to the purpose be a Certainty wherof no man can Rationally doubt Thus much supposed 3. I say first and by this Assertion you may discover the grand Cheat of these Novellists Christian A grand Cheat of Navellists discover'd Religion as it is fancied and variously Professed by innumerable who go under that name and Notion hath so little of this Great Moral Certainty for it That it is an Haeresy to Allow it a mean Probability Why Arians Pelagians Eutychians Donatists Socinians And all other condemned Haereticks called Themselves Christians and professed some part of Christian Religion truely But had They I beseech you a great Moral Certainty For the other part of their Errours and Haeresies falsly vented by them as Christs Doctrin You wil say No. But they had it for the Fundamentals of Christian Religion wherof no man ever doubted and thus much they Defend upon that Certitude Admit of this as True though I hope Prorestants grant That Arians do deny Fundamental Doctrin What is it to the Purpose to tell us All condemned Haereticks and Protestants These men wave the main Question with them have Moral certainty for one Part of Christian Religion wherof None ever doubted And to give us nothing of this High Certitude for the other Part which is in Controversy and Specifically belongs to Protestants Had these men therfore come home to the Dfficulty They would not have here mispent time in Proving what needs no Proof viz. That the General Doctrin owned by all Christians as is a Belief in one God or of Christ a Redeemer c. Hath at least Moral certainty for it But They should have shewed That Arianism as Arianism or which had been to the Purpose That Protestancy as Protestancy stands so firmly built on High Moral Certainty That None can prudently doubt of Protestants under the general name of Christians perswade Nothing for Protestancy it Now this They fraudulently wave And only put us of with a general word of the Certainty of Christian Religion as if Protestancy hid under that Specious name had safety and Sanctuary enough or as if it were all one to say The part of Christian Faith universally agreed on is certain Ergo Protestancy as Protestancy goes along with it upon equal Certitude Alas This is that which only requires proof and is the thing we Absolutly deny 4. Again And here is my second Exception These Authors cannot apply their Moral certainty to the Faith of any Religion that beares the name of Christian At least it is neither appliable to Catholicks nor Protestants For proof hereof Note first That moral Two Reflections made on Moral Certainty Certainty taken in what Height you please is an Act of the Judicative Power in man subjectively setled in his Mind who hath it And ever falles on a Determinate Object for in Objects à parte rei there is neither Probability nor moral Certainty Every Thing imaginable being either in it self Real and Stable or not independent of any Moral Assertion As is clear For should one say now It is morally certain that there is such a Citty as Rome in the World Rome is or is not independent of what is asserted morally Certain Note secondly Though the greatest Moral certainty Moral Certainty may be False usually excludes a rational doubt in order to what is asserted certain yet in rigour it may be false And Therfore ever implyes some weak Degree of Fear of anxiety and suspicion to the contrary Had any one said a few dayes before the Burning of London little then foreseeing that sad Disaster that That Noble Citty would not in so strange a
true But what is this for Protestant Doctrin We ask still by what Signs and Marks of Truth do these new Men prove their particular Faith to be Apostolical Here only lyes the Difficulty never touched on by them Admit therfore at present that they have in their hands the infallible Records of Gods Word they are far of yet from proving their particular Doctrin of Protestancy to be Scripture or the infallible Word of God This is the sole controverted Question between us 10. They finally end Thus much may suffise in general concerning the Protestant way of resolving Faith Very little it seems serves their turn who hitherto never Loct labour to talk of Christian Religion in General medled with that Resolution But have lost their labour by a talking in General of Christian Religion which no more concern's Protestancy then it doth the worst of Haereticks And after this manner They hold on in another Chapter entituled The sense of Fathers in this Controversy Where Iustin Martyr Irenaeus and Clemens Fathers cited to no purpose of Alexandria are cited but to what purpose God only knows Are they quoted to evidence any thing like Protestancy No. The whole-Discours of these Learned Fathers look's another way and never medles with this Novelty Read them as they are either in These Authors with all the Advantages of their Glosses on them or rather in the Originals as I have don exactly you will find them so great Strangers to this new Haeresy That they never thought of it To transcribe again their whole Discours would prove tedious read Iustins words in these Authors Part. 1. Chap. 9. page 264. and add to them the reflection made page 265. What part say they is there now of our Resolution of Faith which is not here in that is in Iustins Testimony asserted I answer Nothing at all as will appear by your own Questions and Answers wholy irrelative to Protestancy Thus then you go on If you ask why you believe there were such men in the Iustin makes nothing for Protestants world as these Prophets wherof Iustin speaks Answer The continuance of their Books and common Fame sufficiently attest it Be is so what is this to Protestancy Can any one probably inferr Because He believes there were such men in the world as Prophet Apostles or Euangelists Therfore he hath the true Doctrin of Weak inferences these Prophets No. For both Arians and Pelagians yeild Assent to that general Truth and so do Catholicks also are all These right in Faith upon that Account precisely Toyes No more then are Protestants 3. If you ask say you why you Believe them to be true Prophets Answ The excellency of their Doctrin joyned with the fulfilling of Prophecies and working Miracles abundantly prove it Prove what for Gods sake No more but this that those Prophets taught excellent Doctrin and wrought Miracles Doth it therfore follow that Protestants Arians and other Haereticks teach such Doctrin or work Miracles No. Herein lyes the Difficulty not so much as glanced at or touched on And thus Nor Clemens Alex. they run on to no purpose for many pages with Testimonies drawn out of Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus which no more relate to Protestancy then those first Words of Genesis do In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth Nay more Clemens cited But Confutes them by these Authors page 273. expresly confutes our Sectaries whilst he requires two things necessary to attain to the true knowledge of true Faith in Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Enquiry and Discovery of it The Enquiry is an impulse of the mind say these men for finding Truth out by Signs which are proper to it Discovery is the End and Rest of this Enquiry which lyes in the comprehension of the things which is properly knowledge A most true and admirable Expression Clemens according to these Authors proceds thus Now the Signs by which Truth is Discovered are either Precedent Concomitant or Subsequent The precedent Signs wherby we discover Christ to be the Son of God are the Prophecies declaring his coming The Concomitant were the Testimonies concerning his Birth The subsequent Signs are those Miracles which were published and manifestly shewed to the World after his Ascension c. Most true and Divine Doctrin which is entirely for the Roman Catholick Religion and against Protestants Why We enquire after the precedent Signs wherby their new Religion is discovered We ask for subsequent Signs which were publickly known to the world soon after the broaching of their new Faith and yet cannot hear of any shewed by these new men in confirmation of their Faith Finally we urge for Miracles and other Prudential Motives Evidencing Protestant Religion in the ensuing Chapter but find none Read it and give an impartial judgement CHAP. X. Protestants have no rational Motives wherby their new Faith is evidenced to be so much as probable 1. TO prove the Assertion we here friendly demand Whether when Scripture Fathers and the best Authority of former ages Assert That the Marks and Cognisances of Gods revealed Truth are as follow Antiquity A Lawful mission Vnity Efficacy of Doctrin Vniversality Miracles Succession of Bishops Sanctity yes and the very name of Catholik c. My demand I say is whether our new Men will own these old Signs as lawful and approved Manifestations of Truth or disown them If this later They are Compelled to shew them unfit or forceles Arguments for the evidencing of Truth and consequently are obliged to produce others more clear and perswasive for their supposed true Religion which is impossible On the other side if they shall please to own them as lawful Cognisances of Truth My Task is to prove That they have neither the complexum of all these Motives together nor so much as one of them in particular for Protestancy 2. Antiquity granted to Popery for at least a Protestants want Antiquity thousand years and upward Protestants have not Those two Brethren of Iniquity Luther and Calvin first brought this Religion forth as is evident by all known History Before their dayes no man can shew me so much as one Town Village or Houshold of Protestants 3. Lawful Mission most justly and without dispute A lawful Mission is wanting challeng'd by Catholick Doctors These two wretched men had not no more have their followers Enquire after it you will find them all unsent Preachers contrary to the Apostles Doctrin Rom. 10 How shall They preach unles they be sent They never had licence to talk as they did But by their own Will and unknown Spirit which as well authorized Iames Nayler to be Christ as them to be lawful and Apostolical Preachers Say I beseech you when the blessed Apostles first taught the Doctrin of Christ Iesus and by their preaching turn'd Idolatry out of the World Did They only word it Christ and his Apostles were sent and shewed their Mission
well to Distinguish between express Scripture and the superadditions of Mens Glosses fallible Explications Interpretations c. Now if When Sectaries interpret Scripture truely They borrow light from Church Doctrin in this particular Mystery of the Trinity Mr. Poole Interpret's Scripture truely it is not God knows His skill that doth it No. The Reason is Becaus be borrows the Truth from the Churches Interpretation of Scripture and so fights against an Arian with anothers Weapon Where by the way observe a strange proceeding of Protestants who when They dispute A strange proceeding of Protestants out of Scripture against an Arian They 'l have the Churches Interpretation good against him and His naught against them And when they Dispute by Scripture against Catholicks They will have the Churches Interpretation forceles against themselves and Their own wretched Glosses powerfully strong against the Church Were there ever such Doings in the world before these dayes 10. But we have not yet said all concerning Scripture Interpretations of Scripture Inferences out of Scripture c. Wherfore Becaus we are gone so far Pardon a further trouble of giving you a few more Notes on this Subject They will shew you if I mistake not upon what rottering Principles the Grand Cheat of Protestant Religion stand's for want of Infallible Teachers CHAP. II. The Fallacy of Protestants concerning Scripture and the Interpretation of Scripture is discovered 1. WE have almost seen enough how Sectaries either through Malice Ignorance or both make Holy Scripture a Book that proves all Religions Like Wittingtons bells It ring 's out what Fancy will For in Scripture is Arianism if we believe the Arians Here is Protestanism if we believe Protestants Here is Quakerism if we believe Quakers Here is what you will and All Haereticks lay alike claim to Scripture and the sense of it what you will not And it must be so whilst These men have a Bible in their hands and Construe all as they pleas Gloss as they pleas Interpret as they pleas without Limit or Restraint It had been much better Methinks if such Sole-Scripturists had never read Scripture in these debated Points of Religion then after their reading to se it made a Book that only begets Dissentions so grosly wronged and abused it is Yet no Body is in fault Pure Scripture cryes the Arian pure Scripture saith the Protestant nothing but Scripture saith the Puritan And there is no Redress for these Evils All run on in their wilful misunderstanding Scripture not one of them will yeild to another nor which is worst of all and plain Perversnes Seek after a means which is yet offered them to come to a right understanding of it 2. Truely I have often wondred at our Protestants men as they say of a more Sober Temper then your Quakers and Puritans are How it is possible Protestants Plea for Sole Scripture after they know right well with innumerable Holy Fathers this Plea or pleading sole Scripture to be nothing els but an old Trick of all condemned Haereticks That they can lessen themselves so much had they no other motive to retard them as to tread the Footsteps of such unworthy Sectaries and patronize a Doctrin which cannot but breed Dissentions to the Worlds end This it is Sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith Sole Scripture speaks plainly in all things necessary to Their false Doctrin Saluation On these two Hinges chiefly Protestant Religion turns about and will do so until God at his good pleasure judge it time to turn it out of the World Two Cheats they are and great Ones as I shall Demonstrate 3. Mr. Poole to mend the matter having supposed Mr. Pool's three Positions that sole Scripture is the Rule of Faith withall That there is enough said in Scripture to end all Controversies were men humble and Studious c. Seem's in the 7. Chap. of his Nullity page 226. to ground Protestant Religion on these three Positions The first is That the Books of Scripture are and may be proved to be the Word of God 2. That in the Substantials of Faith those Books are uncorrupted 3. That the Sense of Scripture may be sufficiently understood in necessary Points There is no Arian but will most easily admit of these three Propositions How then were they all True can they more establish Protestant Religion then Arianism For a Principle common to two Advers parties cannot considered meerly as a Principle agreed on by both more Advantage the cause of One then the Other If therfore an Arian Assent to these Propositions they ground no more Protestant Religion then they do Arianism Mr. Poole wants a fourth Proposition The Truth is Mr. Poole is highly wanting in a fourth Proposition which if proved would have done him more service then the other Three And it should have been to this Sense Seing Scripture speak's plainly all Doctrin necessary to Saluation Certainly it ought to teach Protestancy plainly I mean the particular Tenents of Protestants as these stand in Opposition to Catholick Doctrin For if these be necessary to Saluation Scripture hath delivered them plainly or if it have not done so We must Conclude They are not necessary to Saluation Thus much premised we will shew you in the ensuing Discours how slippery and fallacious Protestant Doctrin is as it Relates to Scripture and Interpretation of Scripture 4. The first proposition No infallible Church no No Infallible Church no certainty of true Scripture Assurance of True and uncorrupt Scripture To makes my Assertion good against Protestants I will only propose this plain Question From what men of Credit and Integrity had the first Protestants Their Bible It From whom had Protestants their Bible was not drop't down from Heaven into their Pulpits with Assurance of its Purity or Certainty that no Change was made in it contrary to Truth since the Apostles Times Were they Iewes Infidels Turks Arians or Graecian Haeretiks that gave them Scripture Too perfidious to be trusted in a matter of such Consequence Too unfaithsul either to preserve true Scripture by them till Luther quit his Cell or then to put into his hands a Bible Vncorrupt in every Point Were they Catholicks Let our Adversaries shame the Devil and speak Truth 'T was from them They had their Bible together with the Originals But these Papists These very Catholicks if we may credit Catholicks in Protestants Principles cannot be relyed on for Scripture Protestants had not only Corrupted the Writings of the Ancient Fathers But also through Malice or Ignorance Had grosly erred a thousand years together and Changed the Ancient Doctrin of the Primitive Church They had Secretly wrought into mens harts a fals Belief of the Chutches Infallibility of an unbloody Sacrifice of Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints and such like errors Admit of this Supposition who is there amongst Protestants that shall dare to look on his Bible with good Assurance of its If
Papists erred in Doctrin They might more easily have erred in corrupting Scripture Purity or say it is the Word of God and not corrupted by These erring Papists For These men who erred in Doctrin might as well have insinuated errors into the Book of Scripture They had time enough to do it These men who changed the Ancient Primitive Faith of Christianity might as perfidioufly have Altered the Bible They wrought secretly a fals Belief into mens harts concerning an unbloody Sacrifice Transubstantiation c. And why might they not as cunningly have foisted into Scripture Words and Sentences suitable to such supposed errors Believe It is easier to corrupt â— dead book then to pervart innumerable living men it it is much easier to corrupt a dead Book then to pervert so many living Christians and bring them to a Belief of so palpable hideous and erroneous Novelties 5. Here then is my Dilemma Either the Catholick A Dilemma Church had erred when Luther and Protestants took the Book of Scripture from it or was pure in Doctrin If pure Most wicked were They for deserting it If the Church had then erred or was corrupted in Doctrin Neither Luther nor any Protestant can have Affurance that they read yet True Scripture For all the Certainty They can have of this Book is miserably uncertain and at last Comes to this doubtful Iudgement It may be we have true Scripture It may be and more likely not God only An unanswerable Argument knows All depend's on an Erroneous Church that gave us Scripture which might as well in the vast compass of a thousand years have guilfully changed this our Book from its Ancient Truth as cheated Christianity into a fals Belief 6. Some may yet say All now Agree as well Catholicks as Protestants upon the Verity and Integrity of Scripture Therfore its needles for many Books at least to Question this point farther I answer Protestants destroy the very Ground of Certainty Catholicks agree well Becaus they take this Book upon the Warrant of Christs never erring Church which cannot Deceive them But Protestants who Ruin this Ground of Infallibility destroy with it all Certainty of scripture in order to themselves Their Agreement therfore is no more but Verbal whilst the Principle which supports a Real one is shaken a pieces by them Hence you se How Mr. Poole speaks at Catholicks Confession no Proof of the Truth of Scripture to Mr. Poole random when he Tell 's us He knows Scripture to be the Word of God Becaus Catholicks confess and acknowledge so much I answer first Their Testimony with him is worth nothing For They had before he was born lost all Credit by introducing fals Doctrin into the Christian World and why not say I as well a fals Bible Such Doctrins He dares not admit of upon the Testimony of Catholicks yet With no colour of reason do Protestants Admit of a Bible upon the Churches Testimony and reject her Testimony in other matters He will Kiss their Hands and Take from them such a Bible as They are pleased to give him 2. The Testimony of Catholicks in this particular is with him Fallible and may be Fals But a Testimony that may be fals can never give any Assurance of True Scripture which of necessity must be had or none can ground Faith upon it 3. Mr. Poole is pittifully out in all he saith For he neither Doth nor can Admit of Scripture upon the Confession or Testimony of Catholicks Why Catholicks hold Scripture to be The Church holds her own Testimony Infallible Mr. Poole rejects this therfore he makes null the Churches Testimony to himself the Word of God Becaus the Infallible Church of Christ Assures them it is Gods Word This infallible Testimony of the Church Mr. Poole utterly Disown's and Therfore he must of necessity by his own Principles Reject the Catholick Testimony 7. Other perhaps will say That God by Special Providence ever preserved Scripture pure in all Essentials Though He permitted the Church to deceive Souls and lead them into Error What an Antiscriptural Assertion have we Here How is God Affronted What a lame and half Providence is granted him Sectaries affront God by allowing him no more Then a half Providence What no more but only to have care of a Book to secure That from falshood and in the interim to Permit his own immaculate Spouse his Church which Scripture should instruct to play the Harlot to Deceive the World and err Damnably O but what er'e becom's of the Church we must say our Protestants have True and incorrupt Scripture or no man can know what he is to Believe I answer And we must either have a True and incorrupt Church or none can be Assured of True and incorrupt Scripture It avail's little to have Verities shut up in a Bible if the Church erred in delivering them to Christians Say I beseech you what doth it avail Christianity to have the Pure letter of Scripture clos'd up in a Bible and preserved from Error if Christians Universally had been as it were Deserted by Almighty God and permitted before Protestants appeared in the World to Err in the very Substantials of Faith delivered in Scripture Yet it was so For confessedly not only those Antient condemned Haereticks as Arians Protestants say all Christians erred for a thousand years Pelagians Donatists and the Later Graecians but also that great moral body of Catholicks if our Protestants say true Erred in the very Fundamentals of Faith Since they Taught as they do still their Church to be Infallible an unbloody Sacrifice c. Gross errors therfore Reign'd amongst them whether we suppose the Scripture Pure or corrupted Imagin then which is utterly Fals Though Haereticks cannot prove it fals That our Scripture had been corrupted They had then Erred becaus the Book was falsified Suppose again which is True that Scripture is not corrupted you have still the same Effect which is Error in Doctrin drawn out of the very Words of pure Scripture The Reason surely is Becaus the Church did not rightly understand Scripture if so you se how Scripture not understood as easily begett's Errors as Error equally prejudicial whether it be caused by a false Church or falsified Scripture if it were corrupted What then matters it in Reference to poor beguiled Souls whether these great supposed Errors arise from Scripture misunderstood or Scripture corrupted Error is Error and alike Prejudicial in both cases I say therfore It is as great an Evil to have a Church that should teach Truth to deceive the world in bringing in a Deluge of Errors to the Ruin of the Ancient Primitive Faith as to have a Bible corrupted For 't is Error and fals Doctrin wrought in mens Harts That undoes them Now whether That be caused by a fals Church or falsified What Sectaries ought to fear Scripture it imports little Our Protestants Affirm the first and may
justly Fear the second God say they permitted the Church to Err and he may say I as well have permitted it to Vitiat Scripture They say Errors Insensibly grew up in the Church And I say they might as Insensibly have crept into Scripture Be it how you will from this Old erring Church Our New men suppose They received pure sincere and uncorrupted Scripture just as the Holy Ghost writ it A meer Impossibility For never greater Chimaera was fancied then to couple a Fals Church and True Scripture together â—â— True Scripture and a Vniversal fals erring Church 8. Some perhaps may say The Arians Donatists and other Haereticks had and have still True Scripture though they erred in Doctrin I answer No God a mercy to them For if They have True Scripture They may thank an unerring Church that preserved it uncorrupt before Heresy began and after But grant me No assurance of true Scripture if all Erred universally once as our Protestants do that both Haereticks and Catholicks likewise universally erred in Doctrin most Fundamental no man can now have Assurance of True Scripture O but the Unanimous Voice of all Christians Affirming Scripture to be the Word of God and pure without corruption is a Weighty moral Proof for its Integrity I answer none at all For if no Society of Christians unerrable and sound in Doctrin had that book in Custody The old Papists might for ought Protestants know have either by Chance or Fraud changed words in Scripture For example Those words Matt. 26. This is my body from what they once were This is a sign of my body and the Cheat was to maintain their Doctrin of the Real Presence But you will ask how could this be done I have told you By Malice or Inadvertency But when could it be done I answer in that Could Sectaries say when Papists first became Idolaters They might be informed concerning these Corruptions very Age Year or Month when these Papists first began to be Idolaters and worship a piece of Bread for God Then it might well be don Name that age Exactly and you have all Our new men Answer This Idolatry was brought in amongst us But they knew not When it began with such Secrecy and Silence This Text of Scripture therfore I say might have been corrupted with like Secrecy Though no man knows when And here by the way observe a strange Paradox of our Protestants So notorious a known A Strange Paradox of Protestants Novelty as this supposed Idolatry is which might most justly have Struck Terror into all mens Harts Visibly entred a Church diffused the whole World over yet none neither Friend nor Foe saw it cryed out against it or Has left it upon Record And one single Particle of Scripture cannot be changed but all must know it How can these two Consist together You will say The Primitive Church was Pure and so preserved true Scripture How do our Protestants know so much if it was Fallible Thus much of an Argument ad hominem which I desire Mr. Poole to Answer not to mistake As he may do if he think my endeavor is to prove Scripture corrupted in any Substantial Point no! 'T were Blasphemy to say it The Argument therfore proceeds from the Protestants fals Supposition yet true with them that the Church is fallible and has erred Then I say None of them can have Assurance of their Bible or of True incorrupt Scripture CHAP. III. All substantials of Faith are not plain in Scripture without an infallible Teacher 1. HEre is my second Proposition And nothing can be more evident might he Evidence of a known Truth prevail with Wilful men Arians we see are against Protestants in the Essentials of Faith Protestants against Catholicks and They against Both. All of them Acknowledge Scripture to be Gods Word Sectaries deny the Plainess of Scripture yet every one in practise Denies the Perspecuity and Plainess of it For if plain Why stand they at Variance with one another about this Plainess Protestants Doctrin is plainly delivered in the 39. Articles The Arians Doctrin is plainly in Their Writings The Catholick Doctrin most plainly in every Catechism No Advers party Impugn's these Doctrins for want of a plain Expression but for want of Truth It is quite contrary in Scripture for He were a Devil that should mention the want of Truth in Gods Word yet you see most Learned men vary about this Clearnes seek for it and cannot find it Though I have partly given the Reason Hereof yet Becaus the matter requires it I shall now add a word more for a further Explication 2. All know that the Objective Verities writ in Holy Objective Verities and the belief of them different Scripture and the Belief of those Verities in a Christians Hart are to be distinguished By the first God speak's to us By the second we yeild Belief to his Word All know likewise That if my Belief be true Faith it must say Exactly and expres that in mente which God speak's in Scripture neither more nor les And this is Saving Faith not the Objective Verities not saving Faith Objective Verity as it lyes in Scripture For if that could save us it would be enough to put a Bible in ones Pocket And say here is the Faith that saves me Though I know not what is in it or Believe Amiss Thus much is clear without Dispute in an Orthodox and an Arian whilst they turn to that passage of Scripture and Read I and my Father are one Both of them have the same Objective Verity before their eyes But the One only hath the True Belief of it in his Hart. Observe now How darkly Scripture speak's in this one great Fundamental Article And how easily we may swerve from One Instance of Scriptures Obscurity this Revealed Truth without an Infallible Interpreter For the words precisely considered may either signify unity in Affection as appears Iohn 17. v. 21. 22. or a Consubstantial unity and in this Indifferency to several Sectaries gloss The Church Interpret's senses lyes their Obscurity To Clear all and make them speak a Full sense the Arian superadds his Gloss and draws out of the Text as also from that other Iohn 1. 5. 7. no more but a Vnity in Affection only which is Haeresy The Catholick Interpretation teacheth a Consubstantial Vnity or One-nes in Essence and 'T is true Faith yet is no more formal expres Scripture then that of the Arian For Consubstantiality is no where Formally read in Scripture However it is believed and ground 's our Faith whilst the Arians Gloss is rejected And why hath it this Preference think ye Why is it better then the Arians No other Reason can be rendred but a most True one Viz. That the Church doth not only fully Express the Objective Verity darkly couch'd in Scripture But also Delivers this Full and clearer sense Infallibly For I say If the Churches Interpretation
If the Churches Interpretation were as fallible as the Arians Christians might follow either as they please were as fallible as the Arians Christians might indifferently Adhere to Either yea and changeably now take one then the other as they please A greater Probability can ballance nothing in this or the like particulars as I shall largely prove hereafter In the mean while by what is now said we may learn first Though Scripture in this and other Mysteries hath its Darknes yet by the good Providence of Almighty God we are provided of a Sure Interpreter which is absolutely Necessary For if Every one interpret according to fancy Haeresy is easily Drawn out of Gods Word And if none interpret Faithfully the Scripture still lyes hid in Obscurity which makes it for that part a Useles Book to Christians The necssity of an infallible Interpreter Learn farther That None can ever know exactly by Human Industry or his Sole pondering the Bible let him be another Salomon for Wisdom what God hath Revealed in these difficil Mysteries of our Faith without an Infallible Interpreter To prove my Assertion I 'll give you one Instance 3. Suppose that two or three most learned Heathen Philosopher well versed in Languages and all Human Literature had this Book of Scripture put into their Hands and were perswaded by the extrinsecal An instance of Philosoohers reading the Bible Authority of all Christians that God here speak's his Eternal Verities Withall That if they read the Book and by their Sole reading without Recours to any Interpreter possess the True sense of it They have True Saving Faith Well They read it and with as much Humility as any Protestant can do yet If They ask of none but Their own Iudgement errour followes Ask of none But their own judgement what it means in the more difficil Passages Tell me I beseech you And here I appeal to the moderate Iudgement of every Christian whether Catholick Arian or Protestant What Faith or Religion would these Philosophers produce out of Sole Scripture Solely Read and pondered by them My Thought is 'T is no more but a Thought That the Result of their Reading would end in Coyning a Religion different from all Others now in Christendom I am very confident They would never pitch upon Protestancy no nor Their doubts would be Endles upon any Sect now extant Alas they would Doubt and Stagger at every hard passage in Scripture yea and by the very Instinct of Nature if they own'd Scripture for Gods Book would humbly Supplicate Those who gave them the Book to lay open the Mysteries therin and Assure them of its meaning in a hundred Places yet none can do this good office for them But One only Society of Christians that layes claim to Infallibility and proves it Demonstratively if Faith be in the World 4. Be it how you will thus much I conclude Our Protestants are in the very same Case without an infallible Interpreter as the Philosophers are with Sectaries are in the very same case without an Infallible Interpreter no Interpreter These make Scripture speak what They think it speaks right or wrong And Protestants do the like whilst They give their sentiment on Mysteries above their Reach without an Infallible Teacher Pray you Reflect Had Christ Iesus and his Apostles never Taught any thing by Word of Mouth But only thrown the Book of Scripture amongst Christians Strange Confusions Had Christ and his Apostles given to Christians a Bible without an Interpreter when They left the World and commanded them to make that use of it which every Private Iudgement thought best what a Religion think ye should we have had at this day in Christianity any or none or a thousand different ones as good as none God only knows I do not Yet will say This is out very present Condition if an infallible Interpreter of Scripture be Rejected We may wrangle to the Dissentions would have followed without hope of union Worlds end but agree in nothing Dispute but conclude nothing we may raise Difficulties one against another But allay none And thus the contest must run on without Redres or Remedy All Appellation here to Antiquity to Councils Fathers Appellation to Antiquity remedies nothing being fallible with Protestants and Tradition help 's nothing Becaus they are Fallible And were they otherwise we vary as highly about the Sentiments of Fathers in every debated point of Controversy as we do about Scripture it self 5. We se thirdly How utterly impossible it is for a Protestant to draw from the Objective Verities revealed in Scripture the True Sense and meaning of Gods Word in any controverted point of Religion The Reason is Scripture never speak's plainly and expresly the Protestants Sense in these debated Controversies observe it in All and you 'll find it so What do they therfore to help themselves They first Reject an Infallible Interpreter and next as the Arians do superadd their own Fallible glosses to make Sectaries make Scripture to speak what They would have it say not what God speak's Scripture speak not what it Truly says But what They would have it say And thus they think Scripture cleared and Their Work don Take here one Instance for many Catholicks and Protestants have been at Variance a hundred years and more about these Sacred Words Matt. 26. This is my Body The different Senses drawn from them are Contradictory And therfore cannot be True This is my Body Really saith the Catholick and here is my internal Faith No saith the Protestant This is my Body figuratively or a Sign of my Body And this is my Belief Arians and Protestants vitiate Scripture after the same manner Mark I beseech Just as the Arian saith I and my Father are one and superadds his Gloss of one in Affection so the Protestant here vitiates the Text by his Gloss and adds to Scripture what God never spoke a Trope a Figure a Sign and I know not what And after This Injury don to the Words He Believes not for Gods Express Word But for his own far-fetcht and dear bought Interpretations which are no more Scripture then if he should tell me That An Example That text of St. Matthew cap. 3. verse 17. This is my beloved Son were to be forcibly stript of its Verity and misinterpreted Thus This is only a Sign or Figure of my Beloved Son No more doth Scripture through the whole Gospel warrant in the least an Improperty of speech in the one Text now cited then in the other I little Regard The Protestant dscourses and glosses contrary to this Mystery of Faith let us have plain Scripture much les their Inferences which are all Human and Fallible O but to say that Christ Body is Really Present under the Species of Bread yea and in a thousand places at Once is an Vnintelligible Mystery Why more Unintelligible then a Trinity of Persons in one Essence
not clearly Whence it is that St. Austin Tom. 10. Serm. 70. de Tempore stiles Haereticks Infelices Unhappy Who only look on the Sound of words in Scripture which is saith he like a Body without a Soul But it is as clear That the bare Letter of Scripture without a sure Interpreter beget's Errors And therfore an Arian Becaus He Regulates his Belief by the meer Sound of that Text Iohn 14. My Father is greater then I Err's damnably And the like All other condemned Haereticks have done in their respective Errors drawn as they thought from Scripture Ergo it is evident that the Letter of Scripture speak's not Clearly in this one most High Mystery And therfore cannot Regulate Faith without an Interpreter Now further If this Interpreter A fallible Interpreter as useles as no Interpreter in points of Faith be fallible He is as Vseles to Christians for the Regulating of Faith as if he were no Interpreter For He may Deceive them And if we be deceived it much imports not whether the Error proceed from Obscure Scripture misunderstood or misinterpreted by an other An infallible Interpreter therfore is necessary in this Weighty matter that Assures us of what God hath spoken of such and such Particular Mysteries And here we Rest securely and have a most certain Rule which Sectaries want 2. Again I argue If Sole Scripture be a clear Rule of Faith it can Regulate without Glosses yea and without a Preacher too Why therfore do our Protestants charge that one Text above cited This is my body the like we may say of many others with so unnecessary a burden of their Interpretations Are Are Sectaries affraid that Christ spoke too plainly They affraid that Christ spoke too Plainly and therfore Add their Glosses to Obscure his Words None will own such an Impiety Then I say They are Added to Clear an Obscure Passage consequently They They gloss to make Scripture clear must acknowledge an Obscurity in this Scripture before their tampering with the Text and glossing it Well But when They have glossed all they can I ask what is it that Regulates their Faith in this particular Their glosses regulate their Faith not the words of Christ Do Christs Words as he spoke them or as They interpret Regulate here Not the first For 't is most evident that Christs own Words without the Protestant Glosses can never beget in any Understanding that determinate Belief which these men have of the Blessed Sacrament For the words of Christ say plainly This is my Body that is given for you Which pondered to the day of Judgement can never yeild this forced repugnant and far-fetch't Sense This is a Sign or a Figure of my Body Yet such is the Belief of Protestants drawn from this Sentence by their Interpretations Wherfore we must conclude that They Believe not for Christs Sole Words But for their Additional Glosses which is to say in plain English Their Overplus of Glosses Regulates Faith not Gods Express and most significant Word Some will say this Passage now cited must be interpreted as They will have it Becaus Scripture in other places seem's to favor their Interpretation I answer candidly Let them They cannot cite one Text out of Scripture in favour of their Glosses but produce so much as one plain Text out of the whole Bible for the Alienating of this Sentence from its proper Sense without Glosses which are no Scripture and I 'll proclaim them Conquerours Here is plain dealing but Remember well I call for Scripture only 3. I told you just now That as these Glosses are useles if sole Scripture be a clear Rule of Faith so are Preachers also yea and all the large Commentaries which Luther and Calvin have writ on Scripture Why Gods Word speak's clearly without a Preacher If Scripture be Clear ther 's no need of Teachers Away therfore with Preaching and Commentaries 'T is enough to thrust a Bible into mens Hands And bid them read it For there is True Doctrin and plain Doctrin but more is not required to Regulate Faith then The Reason Truth and Clarity Ergo Ministers may hereafter well spare their labor of Preaching and 't is better they did so Then to be in danger of perverting Gods true Word by their fallible Talking 4. To conclude this matter we have already amply proved That it is not the Bare Letter of Scripture which Regulates Faith Buth the exact and true Sense of it Ne putemus saith St. Hierom in cap. 1. ad Galat. v. 11. Let us not think that the Gospel lyes in the Words of Scripture but in their sense Non in superficie sed in medullâ not in the Out-side but in the inward Pith and Marrow of it non in sermonum foliis c. But no Protestant with so much as any colour of Reason can lay a more just claim to the true Sense of Scripture when He and the Church stand at Variance Protestants as uncertain of the true Sense of Scripture as Arians are Then an Arian a Pelagian or a Donatist can do when They draw Scripture to Their Sense All of them are alike guided by meer Guesses and first Read next Think then Iudge and lastly Believe Believe what What Their Private Iudgement Tell 's them and here is the last Rule of their Faith All of them guided by guesses Three parts of Protestant Religion wherof more in the next Chapter In the interim you may Resolve a Protestants Belief into these three broken Shreds or Fragments The first part is that wherin They hold with Catholicks And here they have the true Sense of Scripture interpreted yet no True Faith for want of Submission in other Points The other part is that wherin They agree with Ancient condemned Haereticks And herein They have neither the True sense of Scripture nor true Faith The last part is proper to Themselves as Protestant And here they have not so much as the Letter or a Word of Scripture for them much les any true Sense or Faith grounded on Scripture And 5. Upon this occasion I come to mind Mr. Poole The want of Mr. Pooles fourth Proposition of the Want of his fourth Proposition viz. That Scripture speak's plainly the particular Tenents of Protestant Religion as Protestanism And must Tell him He shall never find in the whole Bible so much as one Article of Protestant Religion as it stands in Opposition to Catholick Doctrin grounded on Scripture And Becaus The man may not perhaps like of too great a burden I 'll only urge him to Prove these three Protestant Assertions 1. That there are two Sacraments Three Protestant Assertions for Mr. Poole to Prove and no more But let him not think to turn me of as he doth the Captain with meer empty and insignificant Words Appendix page 34. Scripture is plain enough in describing the nature of two Sacraments He should have added And 't is plain in
moves and draws men to Believe Be it how you will Protestants cannot prove that the Operation of Grace is their peculiar inheritance though indeed our Protestants have an odd Spirit They cannot shew probably That the Operation of Gods Divine Grace is more their peculiar Inheritance then others who Believe contrary to them But of this hereafter In the Interim note That in the Discours hitherto we inquire not so much after the Reason of Protestants for the Canon of Scripture as for its Sense in Points of Controversy Wherof you will se more in the next Chapter CHAP. VI. The new mode of Protestants Misinterpreting Scripture which proves the Churches Infallibility is more Amply Refuted 1. WE noted above That it much Avail's when Sectaries take a liberty of glossing Scripture as they please to urge them to a Proof of their Interpretations By this close Dealing we shall learn much of their Fallacious Spirit and se How they both abuse their Readers and which is worse the Sacred Word of God 2. In the former Discours we Handled that Controversy Scripture most significant for Infallible Teachers concerning the Infallibility of Pastors and Teachers in the Catholick Church To prove the Verity we allege such Express Scripture That I dare affirm the whole Bible speak's no where any Truth of our Christian Faith then This in more plain Catagorical and significant Terms Might The words without patches of vain glosses have their open and obvious Sense 3. For the infallibility then of Living Teachers we cite what Christ said Luk. 10. 16. He that Hears you hears me c. or as the Greek read's and perhaps more significantly Hearing you he Hears me and Argue thus He who hears Christ speak Hear 's a Teacher Arguments for Infallible Teachers subjectively Infallible in Doctrin and Teaching But He who Hear 's those who are pointed at by that particle You Hear 's Christ speak for hearing you he hears me Ergo he Hear 's Teachers subjectively Infallible in their Doctrin and Teaching 4. To this a Grandy amongst our Sectaries Answer 's The gloss of Sectaries That Saying of Christ He that hears you c. was Absolutely true in the Apostles who kept themselves to that which was revealed by Christ But it was only conditionally true mark the Gloss in their Successors id est So long and so far as you speak my words and not your own Observe I say the injury done the Text by a Self-conceited Glosser And he speak's peremptorily it was but conditionally true in their Successors Who saith so Good Sr Christ Or you Prove your Gloss which Overreaches the Text and All the Words which God ever spoke Must I therfore be fooled into a How desperatly fallible men go about to perswade that all Pastors are fallible fals Belief And hold all the Pastors in Christs Church Fallible Becaus you a meer fallible Man are pleased to tell me They were fallible or that All they had was only the Small allowance of a Conditional but of no Absolute Infallibility Evangelical Sincerity requires a proof of an Assertion so newly coyned Produce it A new Sectary may say that the Apostles were only conditionally infallible but Their Suecessors absolutely infallible then and let it be plain Scripture Unles this be done Any New Haeretick may give the quite contrary Gloss to Christs Words And say That the Apostles were only conditionally infallible whilst living with Christ They might be rightly instructed in case they erred But that the following Pastors of the Church were made Absolutely Infallible Becaus they had not the Personal Presence of so good a Master to reclaim them in case they swerved from his Doctrin Thus much is said and only said without Proof And your Gloss good Sr hath no better Proof to enhaunse it But your own Saying which is not worth a rush O But they are strange kind of Sectaries say you who deny the Apostles Infallibility They are so indeed And as strange They are who deny to the true Church Infallible Teachers But this is not what I aym at All I now say is That if such Sectaries appear perhaps amongst you in England They prove Their Assertion as well by venting their Fancies vented without proof by both these Sectaries Glosses upon Christs Words as you do yours You say Those words were only conditionally True in the Apostles Successors But prove nothing They say The Words were conditionall in the Apostles Themselves But absolute in their Successors And prove nothing You are here both alike unles Luthers proof help you out Doctor Martinus Lutherus vult sic habere sic volo sic jubeo You have not more You reply Where the Command is for preaching Matth. 28. the Restraint is added What Restraint None at all When sent as lawful Missioners to preach Christs Doctrin Then They could deliver no Other Doctrin sent by Him and as Members of the Church then founded Herein they could neither go beyond How far the Apostles and true Pastors are Infallible nor fall short of their Commission I say as sent For no man God knows saith that the Apostles or 70. Disciples or the Pastors of the Catholick Church were or are Infallible in every Ordinary matter wherof they casually discoursed 5. Well But the Message These 70. Disciples were sent upon required no Infallible Assistance For they were not to deliver fully Christs Doctrin But only to prepare for it By telling their Hearers That the Kingdom of God is at hand Here is also more then is probable or can be proved For is it probable think ye That these 70. sent to preach reiterated nothing but these few words The Kingdom of God is at hand Is it probable that They were so Toung-tyed as to say nothing at all of this Kingdom of Christs Sacred Virtues or of his Miracles wherby He founded this Kingdom c. Be it how you will They were Infallible at least in the delivery of that Message For had Christ sent by his Eternal Father Personally delivered the Message He had spoken Infallibly But saith the Text He who Hear 's you hear's me Ergo these 70. were Infallible in the Message they delivered You reply again Though the Apostles and those 70. Disciples were supposed infallible Before An obje ∣ ction Christ Ascension yet nothing can be drawn from Hence for the Churches continuall Infallibility First Becaus were Sent abroad by Christ when there were no Infallible Writings containing Christs Doctrin 2. They had sufficient Evidences of Miracles in curing diseases and casting out Devils to attest that Infallibility To this second Answered I answered above That the Church hath the like Evidence of Infallibility by Miracles Casting of Devils c. The first Objection is Proofles Becaus Infallible writings alone make no man Infallible as is evident in all known Haereticks who have Gods Infallible Word yet most certainly pervert it There is therfore as much need of an
Infallible Teacher to learn us now infallibly what that Written Word speaks in a hundred As great necessity now to learn us what Scripture speak's as what Christ tought controverted Points as then was necessary to declare the Substance of Christs Doctrin which he delivered by Word of mouth I say the substance for without all doubt the Apostles and the 70. said explicitely much more in thir Preaching then meerly what Christ had implicitely and in fewer words commanded them to Preach yet They neither did nor could swerve in any Doctrinal Point Therfore in the publishing his Doctrin They had the Assistance of the Holy Ghost before his Ascension Though it was then more amply confirmed and promised anew not only to the Apostles then living But also to their Successors for ever 6. And this is what our Saviour Dogmatically Gods Spirit with his Church for ever Teaches Iohn 14. 16. of a Comforter the Holy Ghost who shall abide with you for ever which words implying a continual aboad cannot buâ— be understood in an Absolute sense Yes say They He shall be with them for ever But how Mark the gloss in regard of Consolation and Grace A meer Guess Not only for Consolation and Grace The only question is whether it hitt's right or no For who tell 's you Sr That this and no other is the Absolute sense of Christs Words Why may They not as well import the Assistance of Infallibility as that of Consolation and Grace Prove your Gloss and by Scripture This we urge for We Catholicks say without drawing further Proof from either Councils or Fathers which you hold Fallible That Christs following words Iohn 16. 13. When that Spirit of Truth shall come he will teach you all Truth taken in their obvious sense warrants this Infallible Assistance for ever Can your Fallible Spirit assure me of the contrary You say Yes For these last Words are Restrained to the Apostles only Here is another Gloss or Guess as unlucky as the former For who Restrains here Christ or You If you do it you may as well restrain the Consolation of Grace to all the Apostles Successors as Infallible Assistance 7. We prove both the One and the Other Blessing granted to the Church by our Saviours own Words Matt. 28. 20. I am with you always to the end of the world and moreover Affirm that the Consolâ—tion of Grace granted the Church whose duty is to Teach us Truth Benefit's little in order to that Consolation of grace nothing in a whole Church without Infallibility End unles it be accompanied with the further Priviledge of infallibility For what comfort hath Any whether Learned or Illiterate to Hear that the Pastors of Christs Church have mâ—â—h interiour Consolation and Grace if this sorrowful Thought afflict his hart All and every one of thâ—se Pastors notwithstanding the plenty of their Grace may cheat him intâ— damnable Error and teach There is neither God Heaven nor Hell 8. I might further show How utterly inconsistent this supposed and yet Vnexplicated Consolation of Grace The Consolation of Grace and want of Divine Assistance uncompossible in the whole Church is with the Spirit of a whole Church which may Deceive us But the thing need 's no Proof for it is evident That God who hath promised to direct us by his Pastors cannot comfort them so plentifully with Celestial Inspirations and Permit all to delude and cosen us with Pernicious Errors Will he give them grace Think ye to Talk only and not to teach his Verities certainly To live holily for his grace serves for some end and Leave them to a Possibility of Corrupting his Spouse his own Sanctified God Courts not his Church with comfort and permitt's it to betray his Truths Church with fals Doctrin This in a word is to tell God That he court 's the watchmen of his Church with Heavenly Consolation who nevertheles may Betray his Cause and give up his Citty to the Devil when they please For here in They are left to their own wills and Fancies God you know is Truth and He loves Truth Truth is that which he first established in his Church And it Answers to that first Operation of Christian which is Divine Faith the ground of all Sanctity To tell me therfore That He comforts a whole Church by A Paradox of Sectaries Grace and yet leaves it so tottering upon Vncertainties That none can with absolute Assurance say He either teaches or hear's Truth delivered in any Article of Christian Faith is worse then a meer Chimaera And makes our Bountifull Lord not only a very Niggard of his Graces But also gives him a most high Affront The Grace therforâ— of Consolation The comfort of Grace supposeth the favour of Infallibility which he allowes his Church as a Church ever implyes or supposeth that Arcb-favour of Infallible Assistance Rob it of this Priviledge and other Graces avail little 9. And here by the way I must needs propose one question to our Protestants It is whether God Supposing his Promises already made can A question proposed whether the Church can withstand an loose all grace according to their Principles permit that the whole Church Vnassisted by his infallible Spirit loose withstand and reject what ever Grace he gives or hath given it If they say Yes It is Possible Then I Infer God can permit that the Whole Church may turn Traitour and become Impious For a Church which withstands looseth or rejects all Grace is traiterous and impious If they say no it is against his Goodnes to permit such a Universal Impiety They must acknowledge That he cannot but preserve a Church for ever whether consisting of Elect or no we dispute not in his Grace and favour Truth as necessary to the Church as Grace and this infallibly Ergo I say He cannot buth Infallibly also supposing his Promises Preserve it in Truth by the special Assistance of his own Unerring Spirit Truth being as all know as necessary to the Church as Grace is And thus we se in notorious great Sinners who although they have a thousand Incitements of Grace to amend their lives yea better themselves by it in some particulars yet as long as Divine Truth necessary to Christians is wanting Their state is Deplorable To conclude then Here is my Dilemma Either it is possible That the whole Church That is All the Teachers and Hearers in it may abandâ—n all Gods Revealed Verities and neither Teach nor Hear one Word of his Truth or 't is impossible If the first be granted 'T is not only possible that the whole Church may revolt from God and Truth But may loose all Grace likewise Grant this and say next what will become of our Protestants Elect people who Becaus Predestinated to Eternal life cannot but have Grace Observe well A Paradox of Sectaries the Paradox They cannot Loose grace yet 't is possible never to hear a Word of
I answer Admit of this most fals Supposition These Doctrins were not Taught Sectaries found Faith on a Negative No Faith at all can be founded on this Negative Before which will never be They Prove their contrary Doctrin Positively Revealed by Almighty God in Scripture For this Principle stands irrefragably Sure No Revelation No Faith Although the Object Assented to be True All the pains Therfore These men take to reduce Their Reformed Gospel to the Model of the Primitive Church is upon several Respects meer labor lost But upon this Account Chiefly it They cannot shew one of Their Negatives Revealed to any Ancient Orthodox Church faulters most That They cannot show one Negative believed by them to be a Revealed Truth to any Christian Society in the world It is pittiful to hear how they fumble in this Discours We Ask how they prove that the Primitive Church held no Unbloody Sacrifice put this for one example it serves for all Some Answer They find no such thing as a Sacrifice registred in those Ancient Writings Mark the Proof They find it not Ergo it is not to be found Catholicks as The Inferences of Sectaries unconcluding clear Sighted as others find that Doctrin expresly Asserted But becaus Protestants are pleased to Deny all They must and upon their Own word be Thought the Men of more Credit Well But Suppose the Doctrin was not Registred in those Ancient Records Is this Consequence good It was not writ Ergo it was not Taught No certainly Vnles They show all Taught Doctrin was then Writ or Registred But let us falsly Suppose that the Doctrin was neither Writ nor Taught Doth it follow that the Contrary of no Sacrifice now believed by Protestants was a Truth Revealed to that Church or taught by it No. Therfore they are here driven again upon the old Negative And thus it is That Church said nothing of an Vnbloody Sacrifice Which is Hideously Vntrue Ergo Protestants can now Believe no Sacrifice which is Hideously fals and as unlucky a Sequele as This That Church said not whether the Moon be a watery Body full of Rocks Ergo Protestants can Believe the contrary with Divine Faith You will Say we Trifle now For that Church was Perfect in Faith and either held a Sacrific 〈…〉 Denyed it I answer in Real Truth it Plainly and undeniably Held a Sacrifice yet must withal Affirm Though we Falsly suppose And this fals Supposition must be vigilantly regarded that it only Negatively abstracted from such Doctrin yet Protestants are far of from Proving it held Positively the Contrary That is no Sacrifice which yet is Necessary to be Proved if They believe no Sacrifice with Divine Faith 11. They may yet Reply They are Able at least to Produce some Ancient Fathers Clearly Enough Asserting no Unbloody Sacrifice Therfore they prove this Negative and so they can do Others I utterly Deny that clearly Enough and say They have not one Ancient Fathe 〈…〉 nor Council nor any Approved Authority No Ancient Father against an Vnbloody Sacrifice that positively Denyes a Sacrifice All unanimously Taught the contrary as Luther himself confesseth Much less have They Any that makes this their Doctrin a Truth Revealed by Almighty God or ever taught by any Vniversal Church Were therfore these supposed Authorities of Sectaries which are none and Reasons also for no Sacrifice more Numerous and Strong then what the World hath Heard of hitherto They cannot in Conscience suppose them Proofs weighty enough to Beat down the contrary Asserted And Vndeniable Doctrin not only of Fathers But of a Whole Church They cannot Suppose Them powerful enough to Build up such a new Negative of Protestant Religion especially whilst They see before their eyes the Torrent of Antiquity against them and our Answers returned to every Trivial Objection they make O But they can Solve all we Object And we must Take their Word Becaus They say so We also tell them We Solve what they Object and yet are not Believed Do you not se here most pittiful Doings and Controversies made Endles by this Proceeding when each Party saith what it pleaseth and Gain 's no Credit from the Other A Judge my good Friends and an Infallible Judge is here Necessary to Decide Matters between us But thus far evident Reason judgeth And Tell 's you Though you could Solve all we say for the Affirmative of a Sacrifice you are to Seek for a Positive Proof of your Vnproved yet Believed Negative There is no Sacrifice And the like I say of your other Negatives CHAP. IX Of the Means left by Almighty God to Interpret Scripture Truely One Passage More of Scripture Proving Infallible Teachers is Quoted 1. WE come now to Solve more fully the Objection Proposed Chap. 7. n. 2. It was to this Sense A Protestant Delivers what he Conceives to be the Meaning of Scripture So the Catholick doth also and can do no more Both of Them therfore are Glossers The difficulty proposed again Concerning the Interpretation of Scripture the only Difficulty is to know who Glosses better Here is the state of the Question 2. To go on Groundedly We may with our Adversaries leave Suppose That God hath not put a Bible into the Hands of Christians to cause Eternal Debates concerning the Doctrin delivered in it And if this be a Truth We may secondly Suppose God desirous of Vnity in Faith gave us not Scripture to cause eternal Debates That his Wise Providence so earnestly desirous of Unity in Faith amongst Christians hath Afforded some Means wherby we may rightly Attain to the True Sense of his Sacred Word For no man can imagin that Gods Intention is That we only Read without Arriving to the Sense of what we Read or which is wors that we fall into Error by our Reading Providence hath afforded means wherby we may understand Scripture This therfore Providence hath Prevented by one Means or other if carelesly we do not reject it We may thirdly Suppose That God regularly speaking Reveal's to no Private man the deep Sense of Scripture when He Reads and perhaps understands it not By private Illustrations new Enthusiasm's or the Ministery of Angels Therfore Private Illustrations no usual means some other way is Appointed by Providence to come to the True Sense of what He Reads The Reason is True Religion requires a True Interpreter of the Book which founds Religion Otherwise God would have only carelesly as it were Thrown Scripture amongst Christians And bid them Guess as well as they can at the Sense of it They having no other means to know his Meaning These Things Premised 3. I say first The Holy Book of Scripture neither doth Scripture cannot interpret its self nor can so Interpret it self as to bring Men Dissgnting in Faith to an Accord or Acquiescency in High Points of Controversy The Assertion is Evident For could the Book clearly interpret its own Meaning Catholicks Arians Protestants
of Truth Reside in the late and hardly yet well known Congregation of Protestants Doth he Teach and Interpret Scripture by this Society The Spirit resides noâ— in Protestants of men No Most certainly no For that Society wherin This All-knowing Spirit Presides as Master is Taught infallibly Those He instructs to Interpret Scripture Both Teach and Interpret Infallibly For Truth it self can make none his Instruments and Interpret by them either falsly or fallibly But Protestants Because They profess to be Fallible profess themselves to be Fallible in what ever they Teach and interpret Therfore they ioyntly own themselves to be No Teaching or interpreting Instruments of the Holy Ghost Observe well the Reason This blessed Spirit when it learn's a whole Church what it is to Believe cannot but Interpret Infallibly by those He Teaches to interpret Our Sectaries deny this Grace of Interpreting infallibly to All Societies of Christians The Reason is convincing Therfore they deny it to Themselves For they are amongst These All And in doing so They Divorce their little Company from the Infallible interpreting Spirit of the Holy Ghost Consequently This Spirit leaves them For 't is most evident He Interprets not by such or for such as deny and Abjure his Infallible Interpretation God forbid may Sectaries Reply we Abjure it not But only modestly say We cannot Teach infallibly as he Interprets in our Harts No. To what purpose then doth this Divine Spirit lay up his infallible learning in your Harts if you can never utter it or Teach others after your Instructions secretly received as this Spirit speak's in you infallibly Here is Light indeed closely hid under a Bushel unseen by All Beneficial to None This short Discours can Protestants discover Sophistry in it let them speak totally Evert's their private Spirit And evidences That their Interpretation of Scripture finally comes to no more But to a Fallacy or a self-imagined Fancy All I would say here is summoned up in these few words Protestants confess that they neither Teach nor can Interpret Scripture infallibly Therfore by their own Confession They aro neither Oracles nor Instruments nor Interpreters of the Holy Ghost who Teaches and Interprets by none when â—e delivers Doctrin for a whole Church But by such as do it Infallibly Hence 9. I say 4. One only Society of Christians There is Hell One only Siciety that Teaches Infallibly gates shall not prevail against it or seduce it by Error which Teaches and interprets the Word of God Infallibly This one Dove is Chast This one Spouse is Loyal This one Oracle is Infallible He that Hear 's it hear's Christ He whâ— slight's it slight's Christ and draw's upon him the Malediction of a Separated Heathen and Publican Matt. 18. 17. Si Ecclesiam non audierit c. You do I know prevent my meaning For by this Spouse and Oracle I understand no other But that long standing Ancient Holy and Catholick Roman Church which Which is the Roman Church ever taught the World in foregoing Ages before our Sectaries seâ— footing in it Beside this faithful Oracle I do demonstrate in the 1. Chap. of the next Discours There never was is or shall be any thing like a Catholick Holy Church Now as it is Ecclesia Docens a Church Teaching and consists of Prelates united with one Head Directed by the Holy Ghost it Teaches and interprett Scripture infallibly As it is Ecclesia Discens or the Church Learning it receives and by virtue of the same blessed Spirit both Instruction and Interpretation infallibly 10. The Truth of my Assertion stand's firm upon the undeniable Grounds already laid no less well proved then presupposed Here is the summe of All. A summary of the precedent proofs The wise Providence of God hath left Sufficient means wherby we may know exactly the Sense of his Scripture in matters concerning Saluation whilst Learned men of different Sects are at endles Debates about this Sense and persist most obstinatly in what they have once laid hold on God therfore most assuredly will not have us run on thus in jarr's to the worlds end and conclude nothing There is means then of a Reconciliation afforded if we please But that 's not Scripture alone which cannot interpret it self but lyes still in that ancient darknes as it was first writ nor can it be mans Private Iudgement for that is both Various and Fallible Certainly it is not the Protestants Spirit For this we se changes every year And confessedly is Destitute of the Holy Ghosts Infallible directing Spirit It is no condemned Sect of Ancient Haereicks acknowledged for such both by Catholicks and Protestants Enthusiasm's no man believes Angels interpret not Scripture What then Remains but that we have recours to that One Ancient Holy and Vniversal Roman Church as wel for Instruction as Interpretation By this sole Oracle the Holy Ghost interpret's and teacheth or we must grant which is lamentable that we are turned loos into an inexplicable Labyrinth of Gods deep Secrets revealed in his Word without hope of finding any Exit 11. To prove my Assertion further positively by Scripture and the Authority of Fathers would be both tedious to a Reader and little avail with Sectaries And I wave as much as may be the useles Repetition of so often quoted Authorities who turn of Scripture by far-fetcht Glosses and undervalue Fathers as being fallible Yet while they do so know well enough their own misery at home within their brests which is nothing but a Spirit of Fallibility You find Proofs amply alleged out of Scripture Councils and Fathers to our present matter in our Polemical writers chiefly when they treat of the Iudge of Controversies However one Text though often quoted I will here give you Sectaries may tamper long enough with it before they return a probable Answer 12. The great Apostle of the Gentiles writing to A solid proof from Scripture the Ephesians Cap. 4. after he had warned them of keeping unity in Spirit and Faith also vers 11. Add's And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and other some Evangelists and other Pastors and Doctors c. And why gave he these Teachers The following words Answer For the consummation of the Saints unto the work of the Ministery unto the edifying of the Body of Christ How long are these to continue To the Worlds end until saith Scripture we meet into the unity of Faith and knowledge of the Son of God c. What intention had God in establishing These Apostles Evangelists and Pastors in his Church That now we be not Children fluctuating and carried away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is turned about with every wind of Doctrin in the wickednes of men in craftines to the circumvention of error Thus the Hierarchy The Hierarchy of the Church that Teaches of Christs Teaching Church is constituted And by no other then Truth it self Now I say No Society of Christians
since St. Paul writ These words can so much as probably show it self permanently blessed with an Apostolical Teacher but our Ancient Roman Church only where the Prince of the Apostles St. Peter yet lives in every lawful succeeding Pope No Society of Christians can lay claim to such continued The Roman Catholick Church only shewes through every Age. Prophets as this Church hath had in it Age after Age whether by Prophets we understand with Scripture 1. Cor. 14. 1. Holy Men praying and Propâ—â—cying or such as Foretel Future things our Church hath had abundance of these if undoubted History may gain credit No Prophets laborious Evangelists Society of Christians can shew so many laborious Evangelists as this one Church alone and St. Paul points at 2. Timot. 4. 5. They are Those who have indefatigably through every Age without Cessation Preached and carried Christs Sacred Gospel to Vnconverted and most remote Nations Thus St. Austin sent by St. Gregory Pope Anciently was an Evangelist to our English St. Boniface to the Germans Blessed St. Francis Xavier and many other Evangelical men were so also to the furthest part of the world No Society of Christians But our Ancient Roman Church only can reckon up so long a perpetuated Hierarchy of lawful commissioned Pastors and profound Learned Doctors Pastors so many profound and learned Doctors who labored unto Death in Christs Sacred Vineyard and innumerable shed their Blood in Defense of it These being undeniable Truths 13. I Argue thus This known visible and never interrupted Society of Evangelists Pastors and Doctors This Ecclesia Docens or Teaching Church constituted The Argument by Christ himself was ever and is still Infallible and Becaus Directed by the Holy Ghost Teaches and Interpret's Scripture infallibly or It can err And cheat that ample Flock of Christians committed to its charge into damnable Falsities If the first be granted we have all we wish Viz. An infallible Hierarchy of living Pastors who shall Successively instruct us infallibly to the worlds end If contrarywise this whole Hierarchy can Deceive and lead us into damnable Error These two woful Sequels Undeniably Follow Fearful Sequels from Sectartes fals Doctrin The first That the Holy Ghost Directs not Teach's not that living Hierarchy of Pastors which Christ appointed to Teach us here on Earth For both This and every other Society of Christian Teachers may Beguile us with fals Doctrin and misinterpret Scripture Grant so much and it followes 2. That our Learned St. Paul Mistook himself and Uttered not one word of Truth in the place now cited For if these Pastors and Teachers appointed by Christ to Teach and so specifically here noted can Delude us yea and have de facto erred as Protestant Assert 'T is possible That They neither comply with the Work of their Ministery nor Edify the moral Body of Christ but destroy it nor persever in teaching Truth until we all meet together in a Vnity of Faith that happy day is not yet seen nor finally after all Their Endeavours Afford means to persever stedfast in Christs Sacred Doctrin They find yet a great Part of People called Christians like wilful Children resting on Self-opinion only They see them tossed and turned about with every wind of new Learning Such is the Fault and unlucky fate of Novellists who will be so wantonly Childish as to slight an Oracle Undeceivable Here then is the Conclusion The Apostles Words are True Therfore Sectaries vent a hideous The Conclusion Vntruth whilst they say these now named Evangelists Pastors and Doctors may Deceive and lead us into Errour CHAP. X. Objections are answered 1. PErhaps they will reply We mistake St. Pauls meaning For the Apostles Euangelists Prophets and Doctors c. Wherof he speaks are long since dead an gon They were those who Preached whilst Christ lived on Earth or soon after and Teach us still by the written Word now in our Hands Since those days we have had no Other Euangelists and Pastors continued in any Christian Society that either taught or interpreted Infallibly Roundly spoken But without book and as Falsly as fallibly Let Sectaries prove this gloss contrary to the express words and bring their proof to a received Principle For who see 's not the Obvious Sense of St. Pauls Testimony plainly perverted whilst He points at Teachers Successively abiding in the Church to the Consummation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is to the coagmentation of Saints or until they be joyned together in one Faith and all meet in a Unity of Belief and knowledge of the Son of God The Deceased Apostles now in Heaven will 't is true se this last Day But are not now with us nor Teach until that Consummation be Therfore Others Succeed and teach in their Place so God hath ordered to the End of all things I have Answer'd to what is added of their present Instruction by the Written Word The Bible The written Word insufficient to reconcile differences I said cannot Because it interpret's not if self Reconcile our Differences And no deceased Euangelist appear's now either to Arian or Protestant to instruct them when they Fail or mistake Gods True Sense This very Scripture therfore requires an Interpreter in whom all must Acquiesce or we may run on in endles Dissentions to the day of Judgement But yo will ask Who is in fault Seing no man blames himself nor the Bible He read's Christ Answer 's He who hears not the Church is both the accused and faulty Person And upon this Occasion I answer to a second Objection 2. Our adversaries may say All Appellation from a Lower Tribunal to a Higher is lawful And they do so For they Appeal from the Church which only consists of men to God and his Word the Highest Sectaries by appealign from the Church to Scripture Tribunal imaginable therfore their Procedure is blameles I answer It were most blameles could They know Infallibly what God certainly saith in his Word But this they cannot know in controverted Points But by the Infallible Oracle of his Church To this Tribunal Christ sends us for Satisfaction in all In real Truth appeal not to Scripture but to Fancy only our Difficulties If we reject or forsake this Oracle in real Truth we appeal not to the undoubted Sense of Gods Word But to our own unsteedy Sentiments which are Fancies only and nothing like Gods Word Will you se this clearly Imagin only a new sort of Sectaries who will both Appeal from Church and Scripture to Gods interiour and eternall infallible This instance proves the Assertion knowledge of Truth They Appeal from the Church Becaus it is made up of men from Scripture because They understand it not in a hundred Passages Therfore they will rely on what God knows to be True and guess at it as well as they can Would you not esteem such Men mad and upon this Account That they cannot
certainly know without a Teacher what this Infinite Wisdom judgeth of the Truth they seek Observe the proof after This is the very case of Sectaries No more do they certainly know in their Principles what God hath already Revealed in that one Text This is my body and the like is of innumerable others then if he had never Registred those Words in Scripture They may guess at the Sense and miss more they cannot do Now if they tell me of no man knows what Moral Certainty or of Fundamentals clearly enough made known in Scripture we Answer fully to both in the next Discours 3. They may thirdly object If a Protestant cannot depose his Judgement nor think that the Church and Scripture say one thing Becaus his Reason finds them Opposite to one another He may stand for Gods Word against the Church To confirm this He may tell us also that the Church which An Objection containing the ground of all Haresy seem's to engross all Judicature and right of Interpreting Scripture is no more but a Party and a Party cannot in Reason be Iudge for it Self when the Protestant stands out and is in Controversy with the Church Here briefly is the Ground of all Haeresy and the old Plea of all Condemned Sectaries 4. To Answer the first I Ask what is this Protestant Is answered that cannot Submit his Iudgement Is he an Angel from Heaven or one immediatly Taught by the Holy Ghost No. He is a poor simple fallible and erring Man Why then may not he yeild to the Church as well as his Ancestors have done before him and the Wisest part of Christianity doth now The true Reason is Becaus he perversly will not submit And though he palliat's his Pertinacy with a Specious Pretence of Gods Word yet he hath not one Syllable in Scripture for him The most He can know if yet so much is that what he reads is Scripture but what God saith in that Scripture he cannot know at all but by Fancy only when he judgeth contrary to the Church O but God Illuminates him about A paradox of Protestants illuminated the Sense Why you my Friend more then an Arian as Strong in Fancy as you are But why you more then a whole Ancient Church Doth God tender you so dearly and not his Church Will he And of a whole Church left in Darknes Illuminate you and leave his Church in Darknes Will he give you the Spirit of Infallibility and take it from his Church Away with these Trifles not worth Refuting neither God nor Scripture nor Church is here stood for But a Self-conceipt only The Church no Party but Iudge 5. Now to what is Added of the Church being a Part and therfore no Iudge I 'll say one Word and first ask what is the Sectary that opposeth himself to the Church Is not he a Party also Will He then take upon him to Iudge and censure the Church And cry out against it as partial if it meddle with him The Church is already impowred by Christ to Iudge in Spiritual Causes as I have proved But no Particular man is more 'T is proved Authorized to Iudge the Church then a Vassal is to Iudge his Sovereign after Treason committed And the Instance is fit as you may se If some in a Kingdom tumultuously rise up against both King and Country as Sectaries have done against the Pope and Church They are accused and brought to a Trial before their lawful Sovereign the Fact is examined whether Treasonable or no. Will these impeached Men think ye fly from the Judgement of their Sovereign or plead He is a Party and therfore seek for Justice to a Forreign Prince No most certainly The King The Church the high Tribunal from which there is no appeal and Country where they offend have Power to Iudge them And so hath the Church in Spiritual matters from which there can be no Appeal And the Case is most Evident for the Church Becaus whilst Sectaries by their Schism or new Doctrin contrary to it become Rebels They have no Tribunal imaginable left them to Appeal to secluding this Iudge But their own Self-judgement which is the Delinquent The Church thus Sectaries make the Delinquent Iudge rejected Neither God Immediately nor Scripture more explicitly nor Angels Ministerially judgeth for them Therfore their last Appellation is to a very Friendly and too partial a Iudge Too partial a Iudge Their own what they Please And this is most evident in every debated Controversy where no other Judge is allowed of by them but Scripture and it were well would they stand to it But it is Scripture as They are pleased to Interpret 6. They may Object fourthly Those Apostles Prophets Euangelists Pastors and Doctors mentioned in the Text Though granted Infallible are against all Reason supposed to be the Teachers of the Roman The pretense of other Lawfull Pastors beside those of the Roman Catholick Church Church For most surely There were other Orthodox Teachers beside these continued Age after Age in the world Why therfore doth the Church of Rome draw all that 's good to it self and Allow no other Christian Society at least a share of these Doctors and Teachers c Mark the Objection which acknowledges a Succession of other Orthodox Pastors and Teachers in the Christian World Age after Age Shewed Null And take with it my plain Answer If Sectaries lay claim to such They are obliged plainly to point them out And say where or when they lived who they taught c. But they are not designable Becaus from Luthers days upward There were none except the Roman Pastors in the Christian world But known confessed and condemned Haereticks And They were no Orthodox Teachers as I largely prove in the first Chap. of the next Discours Be pleased to read it They may Reply fifthly This Argument Such Pastors are not A Reply answered designable therfore were not is purely negative and proves nothing Well But I hope this Proposition Asserted by Protestants Such Pastors and Doctors distinct from the Roman Clergy were Successively found to have been in the World is Positive And therfore must be proved However Negative Arguments in such matters and of the like nature with this That is when things are of themselves Perceptible and yet not Seen Are both strong and Convincing For Example When negative Arguments have force If a company of quick sighted men stand up in a tower set before a plain and look round about them yet se nothing within the compas of the eye like a high Mountain They may well conclude There is no such Mountain within their sight Now I say A Church consisting of such Supposed Orthodox Pastors as Protestants imagin Distinct from the Roman is as visible and discernable as a Mountain in this present Case Yet were never seen by Protestants nor others Therfore it follows They were not at all unles we
recurr to an Invisible Society of such men now as well exploded by later Protestants as Catholicks 7. A fifth Objection flow's from the pen of a Late Mr. Stillingfleet Writer after this manner Cannot you conceive that there should be a Number of men professing Christianity without Infallibility If not saith he I 'll help your Vnderstanding a little Suppose And it 's only a Supposition That all the members of the Roman Church should be destroyed in one Age do not you think that there would be still a number remaining who profess Christianity of the Greek and Protestant Churches sound at least in the Belief of Fundamentals without Infallibility I have answered already No. And given my Reason Becaus a Church A Church separated from Divine Assistance cannot persist stable divorced from the Infallible Assistance of the Holy Ghost is pulled from the Center of Truth which supports it and consequently the Doctrin of it must needs reel and totter now as is supposed to rely on no firmer a Hold then on mans unsteedy fallible Reason or on a Testimony meerly Humane and therfore Uncertain Neither have we without this Assistance more Security Without Infallible Assistance no security of fundamentals of true Belief in Matters called Fundamental then others As is clear in condemned Arians who no sooner left the Church directed by this Spirit of Truth But Errours followed them in points most Fundamental And yet like black Ghosts do and will haunt them without Repentance to the Worlds End 8. Before we end this matter I have one Question to propose It is Whether If all the Ancient Fathers A Question proposed to Sectaries that ever lived Had plainly interpreted Scriptures as the Roman Catholick Church now interpret's them contrary to Protestants They would then Disavow Their own Glosses And submit to the undeniable Authority of so many worthy Fathers Might Reason or Religion set one unlucky Adversary aside called Prejudice make the Answer Sectaries would say Yes And do so were The unanimous consent of Fathers against them Grant thus much And say boldly The Authority of The whole Antecedent The Authority of a whole Church more weighty then that of Fathers and this present Roman Catholick Church is in true prudence of greater Force to withdraw Sectaries from their new invented Glosses contrary to it Then if all the Fathers Together Had plainly interpreted Scripture as the Church interpret's Why Nothing on earth can Parallel this Churches Authority much les make it Inferiour to The Fathers only part of the Church the universal consent of Fathers The Reason is These Fathers were only a part of it particular men and Singly considered Fallible But a whole Church Embraceth a greater number and cannot be misled into Errour Nay I say Though we Impiously suppose Were the Church supposed Fallible the Authority of it is as great as the Fathers That this whole Church might swerve from Truth yet the Testimony of it is as great as that of the Fathers who as Protestants say may all err and swerve more easily This Reason is Reinforced if we reflect on one undeniable Truth which is In all controversies now between us Sectaries can pretend no more But thus much only That the sense of some few Fathers only They never pretended all whilst they interpret Scripture is though often obscure more against the Churches interpretation then for it Here is the most they can say with any Conscience Though we grant not so much when the whole Doctrin of a Father is well examined However Gratis Admit of the Supposition at present And se what follows A clear Testimony Though Fallible hath more weight then another that 's Obscure and Fallible Thus much only The Sense of such and such Fathers is doubtful and Sectaries say Fallible The Churches Sense is clear That is you know what it Teaches and Though falsly supposed fallible is yet far more firm then the other Testimony That 's confessedly both obscure and Fallible 9. This Discours convinceth that Sectaries cannot If Sectaries say the more clear Church Doctrin is the more manifest is its Errour They speak without Principles and suppose what is to be proved impugn the Churches sense given of Scripture by any thing that hath the look of a probable Principle For the Church Defend's it self upon two undeniable Grounds The first Positive And 'T is The Churches own Authority nothing can be greater The other Negative Viz. Never any of known credit neither Fathers generally nor Oecumenical Councils much less Scripture Probably clearly contradicted that sense which the Roman Catholick Church Gives of Scripture And here by the way You may se to what an Exigency our new None of undoubted credit Ever clearly contradicted the Churches sense of Scripture men are Driven for want of Principles They say The Roman Catholick Church is Fallible The Fathers are fallible All condemned Haereticks are fallible They themselves are fallible Thus much supposed Tell me I beseech you by what probable Principle can They so much as seemingly show That either They interpret Scripture better then we or That Any of us all ever yet arrived to the True sense of it in controverted If all are Fallible by what Principle can Sectaries prove their Interpretation to be the best matters Which yet is absolutely necessary For we can have no true Faith without the true sense of Scripture You know if the blind lead the blind There is no safe conduct And if the Fallible man Guides the Fallible both may mistake Their way and err grosly You will have no Answer returned to this Difficulty But Sectaries Fancy and Fancy only Or shew that Any had the true sense of Scripture 10. Some may Reply Protestants have the words of Scripture as clear as the Holy Ghost was pleased to Write them in Fundamentals As also the consent of Fathers at least for those Fundamentals They wave other By-Passages of Scripture and care not much A Reply of Sectaries whether their Interpretations be right or wrong I Answer first To say nothing of many Others They They cannot wave all Difficulties cannot wave one Difficulty concerning the Real presence of Christ in the Sacred Eucharist which is either a Fundamental Doctrin or none is Both Scripture and Fathers are in this particular most expresly against them as is proved Hereafter 11. But let this pass I Answer 2. We have as good Scripture as Sectaries can lay claim to in every Point which they call Fundamental And with it the In Fundamentals we are at least equal and in controverted matter far superiour consent of Fathers also In other controverted matters we own the same Scripture they own And moreover have the sense of it Declared by this long standing Church wherin we infinitly surpass them Speak therfore of matters out of controversy or wherin all Agree we are at least equal with them And for others in controversy
Because the Church stand's for us there No Authority Allegeable contrary to the Church can be comparable to it can be no Competition Unles They render our Churches Testimony of no Force by substituting a greater in its place For their sense which is impossible Alas They want Principles to go about such a work And Therfore must Reduce all they talk against us to Fancy only 12. What I would say here may perhaps be more clearly Expressed Thus. If Sectaries have plain Scripture for Fundamentals we have it also and take along with it Those Fathers They Admit of If in Iudgement against Iudgement Spirit against Spirit other Matters now in Controversy They rely on their private judgement when they interpret Scripture our judgement That 's opposit is to say no more as good as Theirs If they plead by the Spirit of Truth working in them we might set our Spirit against Theirs And Ask whether's better Thus far we stand most evidently upon equal Terms with them Now be pleased to observe what I say They have not one plain text of Scripture nor one plain Testimony of any Council or Ancient Father wherby they can so much as Probably offer to Prove That Protestants have Nothing for Their sense of Scripture but Fancy the sense of Scripture owned by Catholicks is Erroneous in points debated between us And Beside the judgement of innumerable Fathers We have also The Authority of a whole learned Church that Approves our sense They have neither Church nor Scripture nor Councils nor Fathers for Theirs Let therfore the world Judge How far they are from convincing our sense of Scripture to be erroneous by any known or received Principle unles their Fancy enter in and pass for a Proof which we utterly Reject You will say If in all controverted matters we make so much of Church Why Church Authority is to be highly esteemed Authority There is no Disputing Against us For the Church will ever stand for its own Doctrin I answer And if we Value not of it so Highly But Admit of our Sectaries Glosses upon Their bare Word We are worse then mad when 'T is evident They cannot prove that sense to be erroneous by a stronger Principle Then our Church Authority is that denies the Errour The Church Therfore fortified with most solid proofs drawn from Scripture Councils Fathers and Tradition most justly stand's for itâ—s own Interpretation And hence I say Whatever Sectaries can allege against it will show it self an impertinency Though Cavils may be raised There is no Rational Disputing against it You have the Reason hereof already Because what ever Sectaries can lay hold on like a Principle or That wherby They may Attempt to prove the Catholick Interpretations fals will Appear more then feeble to stand against The long standing Authority of this one Holy and Catholick Church But of this subject more afterward in the following Discours 13. And thus much of our Protestants strange unsetled Religion And Vndeniable Apostasy both from Church and Scripture We shall se in the next Discours How They recede from Reason also In passing be pleased to take these few Considerations along with you 14. A Religion destitute of all Appearance of any Ancient A Recapitulation of the enormities of Protestant Religion Church to side and symbolize with As Protestants most evidently are Their Recours to the third of fourth first Ages is Ignotum per ignotius and no less and Vnproved then a Supposed whimsy A Religion which hath not one syllable of Scripture for it as 't is evident men of this Profession have not And because they ever glory in Scripture-proof I am forced to tell them They cannot produce one text for Protestancy without Their fallible Glosses if I wrong their cause let them speak out and shame me I 'll suffer the Affront yet fear it not But Remember I call for plain Scripture A Religion which never yet had one General Council to Confirm it no Vniversal Tradition to Warrant it not one Professour before Luther to Own it A Religion which holds the Belief of all Christians to have been Fals for a thousand years together And the Prelates misled by Errour who taught Christians for so vast a time A Religion whose Professours take upon them to Reform others Before They find Their own pretended Reformation arriv'd to any Shadow of Perfection who espy errors in a Church never Discovered Erroneous By Thousands more Ancient and Learned then They. A Religion which hath the very look of Haeresy turn it which way you will which opposeth all men And is opposed by the Rest of Christians which is setled on no other Ground But the bare Vnproved Word of those Vncommissioned Men that Teach it which Changes every year and hath no seeming Principle for a Ground of Constancy not one Motive to make it Rationally credible Such a Religion I say Dishonors God Injures Iesus Christ seduceth poor Souls and as unworthily as weakly stands out against that Ancient Roman Catholick Church which is every way Blamles unless faulty in This that it made Protestants Their Progenitors And the Rest of the world Christians If I here overlash in Asserting too much let our Adversaries come closely to any one Particular and vouchsafe fairly and rationally to make my Errour known THE THIRD DISCOVRS OF The Vnreasonable Proceding of Protestants in some chief Handled Points of Controversy Be pleased to observe what I shall Note Hereafter You shall ever find our Sectaries either sculking in Generalities or supposing what is to be proved or wording it by Scripture misinterpreted or finally making Controversies endles without Appealing to any other Iudge but Themselves THE FIRST CHAPTER Protestants are Vnreasonable whilst They seemingly hold a Catholick Church Distinct from the Roman neither known nor Designable by any 1. THis is an Article of the Apostles Creed I believe the Holy Catholick Church And was Sectaries are required to point at a Catholick Church before Luther so three dayes before Luther deserted the Roman Faith My humble sute is That our New Men will pleas by a plain Designation I ask not for a Definition of the Church to point me out the True Church which then was or now is Holy and Catholick Protestants as I here suppose were not then visible in the world There were 'T is true Arians Pelagians Abyssins Graecians And perhaps some Remainder of Donatists with other Haereticks whether more or fewer Known Haereticks constituted not the Catholick Church yet the Article of our Creed was then true it import's not to our present Question Notwithstanding it is Evident That some Christians then living unanimously Professed Their Belief in a Holy Catholick Church My demand therfore is whether That Believed Article was then True or Fals If fals for want of a true Catholick Church Speak out plainly And say that Christians Believed a Church which then Really was not in Being If True The then Holy Catholick
Assent and with like The Center of Faith Reverence Upon this Motive of Gods Revealing Word True Christian Faith Relies Mille Clypei pendent ex eâ omnis armatura fortium Here they meet together Concentred as it were in This One Vndeceived and Vndeceiving Verity Do I therfore Believe Christ to be We Believe all â—like upon Gods Word the True Messias Becaus God saith it I must also Believe Baptism the Eucharist and other Revealed Truths when after a sufficient Proposal I know That the same God Speak's Them For if his Word Prevail with me to Credit him in the one It is as Powerful and pressing to force as I may say Faith from me in the Other A further Reason is Because a Another Reason right Act of Faith setled on this Motive is a Virtual and Implicit Belief not of one Article But of all other which the Motive Own 's or Vphold's You se therfore none can truly Believe in Christ who Denies the least Verity Sufficiently proposed that God Reveals For as the True Belief of one Article implyes a Belief of All so Believe all â—â— none at â—â—ll the Denial of One implyes a Denial of all Other And thus Christian Faith consists in INDIVISIBILI And is either Wholy had or Wholy lost which is the True Cause why Protestants have no Faith And must Iumble as They do Why Protestants have no Faith and stagger in their Doctrin concerning fundamental's in Their Doctrin concerning the Essentials of it And finally have never yet discover'd nor shall hereafter if we seclude the Roman Any Thing like a Catholick Church before Luther 5. For These Reasons now alleged Perhaps Some will say That After a Belief in Christ and a General owning of Scripture we must Descend to more Particulars A Reply to little purpose And explicitely Assent to all that Express Scripture plainly Delivers And we will Adhere to the very Words without Dispute If we do so We Admit of all That God clearly Reveal's and Take it upon his Authority without Interpretation Answer Here is a fair Promise of Nothing For Who can tell when Scripture speaks plainly who can Assure us without Dispute when Scripture speak s plainly Both Catholicks and Protestants Dissent in this very Principle Those say it Speak's plainly for the Real Presence of Christs Sacred Body in the Eucharist For Remission of Sins by a Priest The matter still in Dispute For Iustification by Good Works For Extream-Vnction For the Infallibility of the Church c. These Deny all And do what we can to hinder them will upon their own Fancies Force into Gods Word certain violent Glosses which God never Spake You se Therfore That when we Descend to the Particular Expressions of Scripture Concerning the Particular Doctrins of it we are at a stand and cannot go forward For Sectaries will have no Judge on Earth to Appeal to in These Doubts If they say the Ancient A Iudge necessary to determine c. Church shall Judge We are as I told you as Far from Home as Before And as much Differ about the Sentiments of that Church as we do about the Sense of Scripture And thus it ever fall's out Otherwise Controversies are Endles Either we must Drive Controversies Between us to Endles Quarrels or yeild to what our Protestants say or Finally Commiserate their sad Condition Becaus they will not Acquiesce in a Judge upon Earth that as well Ascertain's us of the Meaning as it doth of the very Books of Scripture Without this Judge we may contract to the Worlds End and never be Wiser 6. You se this plainly in that Instance Proposed above out of St. Hierom. For according to plain Scripture if one strike us on the right cheek we must Turn to him the other also We are to Abstain from eating of Blood and Things strangled We are not to have two Coats nor carry Money with us c. None can Deny But that God Speaks These Verities Although they seem light to us Buthow to understand them is to be learned from some Infallible Interpreter of Scripture which Scripture obscure when Seemingly Clear in Words Protestants Reject when all know that very often where Scripture seem's Clear in Words There it is more deep in Sense and most Obscure CHAP. IV. The Ambiguous Discourses of Protestants concerning Fundamentals in Faith are Proved Vnreasonable 1. WE need not here to Discuss too largely This Point of Fundamentals most Learnedly examined by Catholick Writers For if we Reflect well on what is Proved in the precedent Chapter There is enough said to Silence All Adversaries and to satisfy every Rational Mans doubts in This Question 2. We Catholicks Speak plainly and Assert Although an Explicit Belief in God as a Rewarder of Good and a Punisher of Evil yea as some Divines hold of The Catholick Doctrin Christ also After the Promulgation of the Gospel Be Primary Fundamental Points of Faith Becaus Necessitate medij Every one is obliged to Believe Them Explicitly Yet withall we say That the Least Article Revealed by Almighty God when it is Sufficiently Proposed grows to be so far Fundamental That none can Deny or Doubt of it without Damnable Sin And in this Sense there is no Distinction between Points Fundamental and not Fundamental The reason hereof Already given Relies upon this Certain Principle What ever God Reveal's is equally to be believ'd What God Speak's whether the Material Object be little or great After the Charge laid on us to Believe is to be Admitted of with equal Certitude and Reverence For it is not The less or more Weight of Things Revealed That distinguishes Submission to Gods Veracity gives true value to Faith our Faith or makes it less or more Valuable But that which set's the true Price upon it is the Submission we yeild by it to Gods Veracity Now because this Veracity is one and equally the same in what ever is Revealed By consequence we Say That Faith upon the Account of that Submission is equally Good Solid and Valuable This I Note in Opposition to Sectaries Faith not to be measured by the Diversity of Things revealed Who For ought I can yet learn Measure their Faith not so much By the Excellency of the FORMAL OBJECT as by the different Nature of Things Revealed Which Becaus considered in themselves They often vary in worth Protestants Think that the Degrees of their Faith may answerably be less or more various according as the Object requires It is an Errour The Reason For as it is certain That when God Speak's to us The Highest Truth imaginable Speak's so it is as certain That He is to be Heard by us with Highest Respect and Reverence whether the Matter be great or Small 3. What is here said supposeth a Sufficient Proposition of Revealed Verities which without doubt are not equally Clear to all Capacities if we Descend to the Explicit
inconsequent Proceeding of Protestants who must Trust our Church for the Handing down to them Gods written Word Sectaries ill Consequences whilst most Vnreasonably They Reject Her Authority when she Declares what the unwritten Word is I say most Vnreasonable For if it can Deceive in this later it may as well have deceived Christians in the first and given them fals Scripture Wherof se more in the second Discours 6. 'T is true There is Another way of Defining Another way called by Divines Asseveration called by some Divines Asseveratio or The Asserting of a Truth not so Explicitly at least Believed before as when the Church Defines against open Haereticks what was Antecedently of Faith And Herein the Church Proceeds not so much upon a Previous Known Act of Faith as upon the General Owned Principles of Catholick Belief wherunto Theological Discourses drawn from sound Divinity And other Principles partly Evident and partly in a high Measure Morally Certain have Access And are most Prudently Ioined Not That the Definition in it self Relies on those lower Principles But on Gods Gracious Assistance ever with his Church in the Delivery of Truth However Providence will have this way followed as a Vsual and Necessary Condition Because men of Reason in so weighty Matters are not as Sectaries do to Define at random but industriously to use Reason And Proceed on rational Principles But This belongs more to Divinity then to Controversy For I think the Church never yet Defined any thing against Haereticks that was not Antecedently a known and owned Truth of Faith Though not so fully expressed as it often is by the Churches clearer Proposition Thus we say The Real Doctrin of Transubstantiation The Real Doctrin of Transubstantiaton as old as that of the Trinity c. is as old as the Doctrin of The Trinity or the Consubstantiality of the Son with His Eternal Father Though the Words Expressing these Mysteries more significantly and clearly are of a later Date 7. Now to the Objections And one Hinted at above is The Church was solidly Founded in the An Objection Apostles time in all Things necessary to Salvation Therfore These Post-nate Definitions of it are to no Purpose To confirm This Our young Antagonist Ask's Whether the Apostolical Declarations of the Ancient Primitive Of Apostolical Declarations lost Faith were lost in the intermediate Ages or no If not lost Shew them saith He And There is no Need of new Definitions If they were lost in their Passage down the Church now wants them And therfore can Define nothing Were the Play worth the candle I might here Demand of Protestants whether Their Declared Sense This is a Sign of my Body Added Is retorted to Christs Words This is my Body which Sense They suppose to be Apostolical was lost in the intermediate Ages or no If not lost shew us that Apostolical Declaration and 'T is enough But this is impossible If 't was lost or rather never in Being How dare Sectaries make such a Declaration on their own Heads without Producing the Apostles Warrant I Answer The Answer The Church was solidly founded as 'T is now That which is sufficient in one Age Serves not always briefly to the Objection The Church then was solidly Founded just as 'T is now the Doctrin is one and the Same And every Article of it was ever and is now still either explicitly or implicitly Believed Yet These new Declarations are Necessary Because the Proposition of a Doctrin sufficient in one Time or Age Serves not for all Times and Ages when New Difficulties occurr And Haeresies rise up against it The Church therfore ever vigilant and Desirous to quiet all speak's Again more clearly the old Received Verities Causlesly too often Bogled at by Sectaries I say more clearly For 't is one thing to Assert Such a Verity is not at all contained in Scripture or in the Ancient Deposited Different Circumstances require clearer and more ample Declarations Doctrin of the Church And another To say it is so clearly There That in order to us and different Circumstances it needs not at all a further Declaration Sectaries continually Declare Their Sense of Scripture For They have no other Deposited Apostolical Doctrin to Talk of And why may not the Church Authorized by Christ with Better Reason do so too To what is Added to Help on the Objection I have answered Deposited Doctrin following the Church through all Ages is securely preserved The Deposited Doctrin Orally Delivered without writing is not lost But still remain's in the Churches Treasury 'T is as it were Handed down from Age to Age and Inseparably accompanies the Church through all Ages Yea and is kept there Though not in Chists or Coffers as securely as if 't Had been engraven in Brass or Marble And Sectaries must say thus much Sectaries must grant This. if They own Scripture for Gods Word For are not They now as well Assured upon the Churches Testimony or Vnwritten Tradition That St. Iohns Gospel was Indited by the Holy Ghost As if the Church produced a Hand-writing to Evidence that Verity Yes most Assuredly Whoever therfore Dare call into Their urging for a hand writing of Apostolical Doctrin is proved frivolous Question the Churches Authority Asserting a Doctrin Though it Produce no Manual Writing For it May as easily Doubt if it show you One Whether that very Exhibited Evidence be Authentical or no. Let us only Imagin that the Apostle that writ the last Part of the New Testament had exactly set down the whole Canon of Scripture which the Church now Receives Let us Suppose again That very copy to be left in the Hands of some Pious Christians Living in those Days No hand-vvriting distinct from Scripture is comparable to the Churches ovvn Authority and so long Preserved Vntil After Haereticks excluded from the Canon such and such Books of Holy Scripture as Luther lately Did St. Iames Epistle Both they and Luther might more Rationally have doubted of that very written Instrument then any can now Doubt of a whole Churches Authority owning the Canon of Scripture to be as it is No Charter Therfore no written Instrument Though once truly made when the Author is gon can Parallel the Churches Testimony in what it Asserts The The Reason Reason is Because a Manuscript only Tell 's you what it Contains but not Whose it is and though it did so Men might yet question the Forgery of it unles an Authority beyond Exception extrinsecal to the writing take away all Fear of Cozenage and make it Vndoubted Tradition surer then any Manuscript This Reason proves Tradition Necessary in the Church as well for the owning of Scripture as other Verities 8. I have said thus much to show How neer to a Piece of Non-sense our Adversaries Draw when To Cancel the later Definitions of the Church They urge us to produce the old Apostolical Declarations whereby
these later Definitions are proved Authentick Can you Imagin what They would be at Would These men would have They know not what they have an Authentick Attestation to prove what the Church hath Defined ever since the Apostles Time is the Ancient Apostolical Doctrin The Church Tell 's Them it is so but That 's not enough Would they have a Register Distinct from the Churches Declaration containing the Summ of all Apostolical Doctrin Yes sure this They seek for if their Demand of having the Apostles Declarations shewed them carry Sense with it For example we must shew them by some written Record more Ancient then all the Definitions of the Church are That the Apostles held a Purgatory Transubstantiation a Sacrifice c. Or at least Prove these Doctrins to be grounded on â—ndoubted Received Tradition I have answered Suppose the Roman Catholick They are clearly confuted Church And here we speak of no other For I hope Sectaries will not urge us to shew Them writings Received from Ancient Haereticks should Produce a Record containing a Summary of Apostolical Doctrin Our Adversaries might more justly except against that as an old unproved Legend then They are now able Rationally to except against the Churches Definitions Because such an Imagined Record must either be Approved by as great an Authority as the Churches is to gain it Credit or by a Greater There cannot be a greater in this present State of Things then the Churches own Authority But Sectaries Reject this Authority when the Churck Defines Therfore they would much more easily Reject that supposed written Instrument though it told them exactly what She now Defines is Apostolical Doctrin As much Therfore The Church can do as much without the Imagined Hand-writing as with it as the Church can be supposed to do by the Help of such an Imagined Writing it can do without it For if it have Authority to Legitimate as it were such a Writing it s own Authority is as worthy of Credit when it Defines without the Writing You se Therfore how Unreasonably these men require a Codicil containing the old Apostolical Doctrin which ought Forsooth to be Exhibited and shewed them Before they can be perswaded that the Church fairhfully Proposeth or Defines a Doctrin to be Apostolical 9. Now if They be convinced that to Require such a Manuscript from us is as Vnreasonable as if we should Press them to produce one for Their late Novelties And therfore urge the Church to prove her Defined Doctrin by undoubted Tradition I answer The Church doth So whilst They God knows Allege nothing like Tradition for so much as one of their New Articles A Fallacy of Sectaries about Tradition And here because we have a fit Occasion I 'll Discover in a Word the Fallacy of Sectaries in this matter of Tradition I say in a Word For 't is not my Task now to Handle that Question largely Thus it is Sectaries ever suppose when the Church Defines a Doctrin upon the Tradition of former Ages it is obliged to shew them the very Doctrin in express Terms Antecedently to the Definitions owned and writ down in the Volumes of some one or more Learned Fathers Whence it is They Argue How Sectaries argue No man heard of a Purgatory before St. Austins Time and He only hints at it slightly nor of Transubstantiation before the Lateran Council c. Therfore those Doctrins are Novelties lately introduced I Answer Were all this True The Argument is an unconcluding Negative and run's By uncluding Negatives limping thus Antiquity or the Ancient Fathers have not Expressed every Defined Doctrin of the Church in the like Explicit Terms as the Church useth Therfore such Doctrins were not really Received by the Church Observe well From the want of an Expression suitable to Sectaries Fancy They Infer The Fathers expres Things sometimes one way and the Church another the Doctrin was never Taught by Antiquity Alas the Fathers had their Expressions one way and the Church after mature Deliberation another often more significant Yet Both Aymed at the same Verity though differently set forth in Words as is clear in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation called by the Fathers a Real Change of Bread into Christs Body By the Lateran Council as you here se otherwise I say yet Farther Had the Fathers not at all so much as Hinted at a Doctrin Defined by the Church the Argument is yet Purely Negative and worth nothing Sectaries Discours highly improbable But is here all No. Their Discours upon another Account is highly Improbable To prove what I say Do no more but only Imagin That Three or Four of the most Ancient and Learned Fathers Had in express Terms Owned and Registred in Their Writings the Lateran Councils Definition concerning Transubstantiation as received Orthodox and Catholick Doctrin just as that Council Defines it would Sectaries then have owned it as Ancient and Orthodox upon those The Definition of a General Council gives Security Fathers Testimony If they say Yes They are Evidently convinced For the sole Authority of a most Ample Learned Council is in true Prudence a Firmer Principle and a better Proof to Rely on If we enquire after known and received Orthodox Doctrin ever held in the Church Then the very best Assurance That one or more Fathers can give Vs of it For who see 's not But that the very Definitions of the Nicene of the Council of Ephesus or Chalcedon c. Are more weighty to beget in us a Belief That what Those Councils Defined to be received Truths were so indeed Then if twenty other Fathers had Antecedently writ them in their Councils Representing a whole Church know more then particular Fathers learned Volumes The Reason is Because General Councils Representing a whole Church Spread all the World over cannot but know more Exactly what Tradition and the Received Doctrin of Christianity is Then Private Men can be Supposed to know who lived in several Parts of the World And bad no Obligation to Register intierly the Churches Doctrin in every Particular Thus much is said if the Church at any time Defines upon Tradition only Foâ— 'T is most certain that beside Tradition it Relyes on Scripture also and Hitherto never wanted the Authority of most Worthy Fathers that undubitably Taught as it Defined Though not always perhaps in such Express and significant Words If Sectaries Reject both Church and Fathers when they have not a word of Scripture for them 10. Now on the other side If Sectaries will neither Allow of the Fathers Doctrin Susiposing it were Express for our Catholick Verities as most evidently 't is in twenty Controversies nor of the Churches Definitions Already Declared in Eighteen General Councils We are out of the Reach of all Principles And must leave them to their unsteedy Fancies or wilful Obstinacy And pitty Their Deplorable Condition They are more to be pittied then Disputed against
Errors by pure Scripture Venture probably on such a VVork when you bave not so much as one VVord of Scripture that inables you to Advance a Proof against us Relying on these Grounds and firm Principles 15. We easily Solve another trivial Objection of Another objection solved of Scripture containing all Things Necessary Sectaries which is Scripture contains all Things Necessary to Saluation Therfore we need no new Definitions made by the Church I might say much less do we Stand in need of Protestants new Declarations forced on Scripture without a Church But y'le Answer in a Word Though Scripture contained all the Oral taught Apostolical Doctrin and what ever els is Necessary to Saluation which is Fals yet when we se with our Eyes that Sacred Book pittifully Abused by Haereticks not only Haereticks make Scripture useles in lesser Matters as They account of Them But in the very Highest Mysteries of our Christian Faith it must needs be a useles Book in Their Hands without an Infallible Interpreter And therfore cannot Decide Controversies nor Tell us what is Necessary to Saluation as I have largely proved Disc 2. Nay farther Some may justly Question It may be doubted whether an Angel could write a Book so plain of other High Mysteries which the vulgar would not misunderstand Whether if a very Angel writ a Book as full of other High Mysteries yet unknown to the World as the Bible now Contains And used his best Skill to Express Those Vertties in the most Clear and significant Language Imaginable Some I say may Doubt whether such a Written Book left only to the Private judgements of Those whole Multitudes who now read Scripture would not be misunderstood in a hundred Passages if no After Teacher Regulated the weak Readers of it in Their Difficulties or did not comply with the Duty of an Infallible Interpreter Therfore the Bible which is now Extant And contains the High Mysteries of our Faith often less clearly expressed much more need 's an Interpreter And perhaps the wise Providence of God would have it writ so on set Purpose that Christians should have Recours to a Living Oracle of Truth and Learn of it what They cannot Reach to by their own simple Reading You Church Doctrin is repeated again and Again None can be ignorant of it will say an Angel can write a Book as clear to all Capacities as the Churches Definitions are Very True What then That Book only once writ is left as we now Suppose to the Sentiments of private Ignorant Men as the Bible now is in Their Hands But God hath provided that the Churches Doctrin be not only once Delivered No. It is Laid forth anew it is implanted anew it is repeated and cast like good seed Again and Again into mens Harts and Memories by Faithful Pastors and Teachers who shall never fail the Church to the End of the World 16. A third objection The Churches Definitions Because Men declare them and all Men are Lyars cannot be Infallible and Therfore Ground no Faith Contra 1. Ergo Neither Sectaries Novelties Nor the General Doctrin A cleur Conviction of Sectaries owned by all Christians of one God and one Christ Becaus men Teach them And all are Lyars may yet be Fallible and Fals also Grant or Deny the Sequel you are Silenced Contra 2. If All are Fallible and consequently may be Lyars in what they Teach why Vent you my good Friends So many Negative Doctrins which may all be fals Truely if There be no Infallibility in the World you neither ought to Vapor as you do with your Inferiour Negatives not Blame our They Condemn Themselves whilst their Censure is Fallible Contrary Positives For in Doing so You condemn your own Iudgement and Advance no Proof against us Your Fallible Censure were our Church Fallible Goes not one Step above a tottering Fallibility And therfore is too faint to Oppose the Churches contrary Doctrin Though falfly Supposed Fallible Mark well I Our Churches Doctrin Though supposed fallible is as Good as Sectaries Confessed Fatliâ—â—e Doctrin must say it once more You Fallible men tell me That my Churches Doctrin is Fallible Admit of the Fals Supposition it is yet upon all Accounts as Good as yours or as This very fallible Affirmation is That says it's Fallible And if in real Truth it be Infallible it is much Better 17. One word more If Any People on Earth ought to stand for the Infallibility of a new Invented Religion The Abetters of Protestancy could they Proceed consequently should Do it Why They Deprive Men of their Estates cast them into Prison Bannish some Hang up Why Sectaries persecute Catholicks while Iewes are tolerated others And All this is Don Becaus poor Catholicks cannot in Conscience conform to a Religion that is Professedly Fallible and Vncertain Now if such Crueltly can be practized on Christians whilst Iewes And the worst of Haereticks are Tolerated to live quietly For a Thing that 's only Fallible and may as well be Fals as True we are The Reason is because we cannot believe a Religion That may be as likely Falsas True surely at an End of all good Discours grounded on Christian Principles What To Bannish us to Confiscate Mens Estates To Shed our Blood For a Religion That may be Fals when we Believe our Creed And Profess as much as these newer Sectaries make Essential to any Religion of Christians is to speak moderately an unheard of Severity Yet so it is They Do not Harrass us as they do Because we Believe in one God and one Christ or own a Doctrin common to all Christians For themselves Believe so much But Here is our supposed Mark well our supposed Crime Crime We cannot Assent to a Religion that may be Fals we cannot Subscribe to a Company of new Negative Nothings And Therfore we are lashed and Persecuted Nay and I 'll tell you a Wonder our Guilt goes not so High A wonder never enough to be admired For though we were in our very Harts Arians or As we are Catholicks yet if in the Exteriour we do as Sectaries do we are still lovely Children of the Church of England Learn Therfore this Truth it is Vndeniable All the Storms of Persecution Raised against us Are not upon any In real Truth we are persecuted because we will not be plain Hypocrits Account of want of True Faith But for this Sole Reason That we will not Believe one Thing and Force our Consciences to Profess an Other Which is to say We are Handled thus roughly Because we will not Dissemble with God and Man and become plain Hypocrits Herein only Lies our Trespas Iustus es Domine recta Iudicia tua Iudge you my God whether that no-offence Merit 's These Scourges 18. By what is now said You may easily Perceive That when Sectaries seemingly Bemoan our Blindnes God knows how much of The Grief lies at their
And in Rebels also of a Common-wealth will Say The Arians Erred But Protestants hit right on the Roman Abuses and this makes their Reformation Iustifiable Meer Proofles empty Words The Proofles Talk of Sectaries For do you not se and evidently That all you Speak to this sense is a wretched Supposition and a pure Begging of the Question And Becaus it is so can either We or any third Indifferent Judge Believe you sooner speaking in your own Cause then credit an Arian that will say the very same For his Heresy O But Confessedly both Catholicks and Protestants acknowledge the Arians to be Hereticks And as Confessedly both Catholicks and Arians yes And all other Sectaries Say also you are Hereticks What Therfore get you by this Reply Will you Tell us next That you are Better at your Proofs against us then the Arians are The Arians laugh at you And say with Truth This very Assertion is Proofles Believe it Though the Arguments of Arians against our Ancient Church wherof they were once Members The Arguments of Arians are more difficile Then ever Protestants yet Proposed against our Church Doctrin are both Deficient and Strengthles yet They go far deeper into Difficulties vvhich look more manly On 't then vvâ—at hitherto any Protestant hath Proposed against us If you say This is my own unproved Assertion I will first Appeal to the Iudgement of any Indifferent and Vnconcerned Scholler for sentence in the case Next if this like you not Be you first Pleased to Propose one of the strongest Arguments you have Against any particular The Grounds of the Assertion are declared Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church One I say and in Form which may at last be Driven to an ovvned Principle And then Though I do Anathematize The Heresy I shall Advance an Other in Behalf of the Arians And if this in the Judgement of every good Scholler do not more Puzzle you in your own Principles then yours me against the Church I 'll Sectaries cannot solve the Arians Arguments without recurring to our Churches infallible Interpretation of Scripture yeild up the cause Here is fair Play offered The ground of my Assertion is first Becaus Protestants cannot so much as Probably solve the Arians Difficulties without Recurring to the Churches infallible Interpretation of Scripture vvhich they Reject 2. Neither Catholicks nor any can solve them Otherwise then only Negatively That is by shewing they do not Convince But to Infringe their Force Positively Or To Evidence them fals Abstracting from Tradition and The Reason why Arians Difficulties are harder then those of Protestants Negatively and Positively Protestants Arguments are Solved the Authority of the Church which is more the Proof of Catholick Doctrin then a Direct Solution to difficulties is Impossible Now on the Other side Protestants can Propose no Difficulty Against us for Protestancy But we will first Shew it Negatively Vnconcluding And next by Positive Proofs break in pieces the Seeming Force of it For example They Argue against the Real Presence A body cannot be in One Example Hereof tvvo places at Once We Show first Negatively that their Argument concludes not and then Introduce Positive Proofs partly drawn from Gods Omnipotency partly from other Undeniable Grounds Which both weaken and Dead the Argument And thus we Proceed with them in Other Controversies Concerning the Popes Supremacy Praying to Saints Purgatory c. 7. I have Complained all along of our Adversaries Asserting much and Proving Nothing You will yet se more of this Proceeding in some who Think They strongly Vindicate the Church of England from the Guilt of Schism CHAP. XV. More of These Authors Confused Doctrin is Refuted 1. IN a Chapter Intituled Protestants not Guilty of Mr. Stillingfleet Schism The Catholick Opponent Argues If the Roman Church was corrupted in Doctrin it Follow 's That for many Ages before Luther there was not one Visible and Orthodox Church throughout the whole World And consequently during that Time Every good Christian was obliged in some point or other to Contradict the Doctrin and Desert the Communion of all Visible Churches in the World Which If all particular Churches were corrupted in Doctrin the whole Catholick Church was also corrupted I say cannot but Imply a Leaving of And also a strong Opposition Against the Church Catholick What ever this Catholick Church be For this Catholick Society is not a Chimaera in the Ayr But is Essentially Constituted of either Pure or Particular tainted Churches Now our Adversaries say All particular Churches throughout the whole World were tainted Ergo what ever is meant by the Catholick Church was also corrupt and Therfore upon the Supposition men are obliged to desert the Communion of the Catholick Church He Grant's no particular Church was free from Errour They say all Churches had erred It is necessary to separate from all erring Churches therfore as necessary to separate from the whole Catholick Church What Sectaries Reply Tainted Yet more I am Obliged to Desert all Corrupted Churches Therfore I am obliged to Abandon the Communion of the Church Catholick After much Talk and Quibling about the Meaning of one Visible Church and the Errours of particular Churches whether Several or the same in particular Societies of Christians c. These men Grant That there was not One Church of any Distinct Communion from others free from Errours The Arians the Nestorians the Eutychians the Greeks the Abyssins Hussits And finally Catholicks Had Erred Therfore all the Churches in the World consequently the Catholick Church had erred before Luther But it is Necessary to Separate from the Communion of all Erring Churches Therfore 'T is as Necessary to Separate from the Communion of the whole Catholick Church 2. To This Argument They Answer There can be no Separation from the whole Church But in such Things vvherin the Vnity of the vvhole Church lyes c. Novv vvhen men Separate from the Errours of all particular Churches They do not Separate from the vvhole Becaus those Things vvhich one Separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make them all put together to be the vvhole or Catholick Church For a further Explanation They tell us Two Things may be Considered in all particular Churches One that Belongs to them as a Church The other that belongs to them as a particular Church What belongs to them as a Church Implyes the Common Ligaments or grounds of Vnion betvveen all particular Churches vvhich taken all Together make up the Catholick Church Novv these vvhich belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the Essence of a Church vvithout them And therfore supposing That I should Separate from all particular Churches I do not Separate from the communion of the whole Church Vnles it be for something without Which those could be no Churches 3. Here in brief is their Confused Vnproved and This Doctrin of Sectaries confused
to have been preserved by God Proves also the Roman Christian Religion Graciously preserved The Reason Prove True Christian Religion taken under that General Notion to have been Preserved in so many Storms of Persecution by Gods special Assistance If Sectaries Answer Yes The very same Arguments applyed to the Roman Catholick Church Prove that also Graciously upheld by Providence The Reason is Becaus as I have largely Proved True Christian Religion Though never so Generally taken And the Roman Catholick Religion are Synonima's and the very Same There is no Difference between Them Now if Sectaries say That as well the Christian as the Roman Catholick Religion have subsisted so long vvithout special Assistance by Mans meer Industry and Humane Policy They do not only Enervate Old Gamaliels Argument But more Vent a Paradox which can If Sectaries Say Religion hath been so long preserved by Humane Policy They vent an unproved Paradox never be Proved Or Brought to any known Principle But to Fancy only 26. And thus much briefly of some Few Arguments for the Roman Catholick Religion which if reduced to Form And 't is easy to do it are Vnanswerable You have more in the Treatise Let us now se in the next place what Sectaries can Say for their Novelties or upon what Proofs Antecedent to their Faith They are able so far to Evidence the Credibility of Protestancy As to make it in a Poor Measure Probable CHAP. II. Protestancy is an Vnevidenced And a most Improbable Religion Or rather no Religion but a meer Fancied Opinion 1. IT is Vnevidenced For the Professors of it can by no Rational Arguments Previous to Belief more Prove That Their Owned Novelties ought to be Admitted of as prudently Credible Then the worst Protestancy as much Vnevidenced as Arianism of Heresies Take for an Instance Arianism Hear my reason The very Grounds wheron Rational Proofs ought to stand Fail them They have no Antiquity no Vniversality no Succession of Protestant Bishops and Pastors They want lawful Mission Miracles and all other prudential Signs of Truth as is largely Declared in the first Discours c. 9. Yet from These and the like Motives Previous rational Proofs manifesting the Credibility of Religion must be Drawn Or The Religion which is Asserted Rational Motives must Evidente the Credibility of Religion or 'T is upheld by his bare word that sayes it is True to be True or Credible will Appear Naked and Vnevidenced having nothing to Vphold it But the bare Word of Him who Sayes it is True And Therfore is no Religion I need not to Vrge this Point further Becaus Sectaries tacitly Suppose the Credibility of their Religion to be Vndemonstrable by outward Signs and Marks of Truth For Inquire of Them Why They rather Embrace Protestancy then Popery or any other Doctrin of Hereticks You never Hear a word of the long Continuance Sectaries seem to make no Account of these Antecedent Motives of Their Church of their lawful Mission of the Succession of Their Protestant Bishops from Christs time Nor of Vndoubted Miracles c. No. But they presently run to Scripture and Tell you That both their Faith and the Motives of it internal to the Book Stand there sufficiently Evidenced Shall we se a little the Vanity of this Assertion 2. Methinks I enter into a Study where a learned Protestant Sit's with a Bible before Him And much Dissatisfied with his Novelties I Assure him The The Bible Alone proves Nothing for Protestancy very want of rational Proofs Grounded on Objective Motives Drawes me from His Religion which is neither evidently nor So much as Probably made Credible to Any The man Points at his Bible And saith This Book both Proves Protestant Religion and Gives you Motives for it Make Sir say I this your Assertion Good Viz. The Bible Delivers Protestant Religion He Argues The Bible Teaches that Iesus is the Christ the Eternal Son of God the Redeemer of the World And thus much Protestancy Teaches also Ergo Scripture Proves Protestancy To prove Doctrin by Scripture Common to all Christians is not to prove Protestancy I Answer The Argument à Genere ad speciem Proves just nothing For these Doctrins Common both to Catholicks and other Sectaries are no specifical Articles of Protestancy as it is Reformed Now These Sir you must Show Contained in Scripture For Example As a Protestant you Believe no Sacrifice Offered upon the Altar No Purgatory No Transubstantiation c. Pray you Warrant these Negative believed Articles by Scripture-proof He Replyes After his long Reading Scripture He Find's no Mention made at all of a Sacrifice of Transubstantiation And the like I Answer Others as learned as He find Them And Prove all by Scripture Here Therfore is no Owned Principle to Ground his Denial on But let this Pass 3. I Argue against my Doctor Though you find not a Sacrifice or Purgatory in Scripture nay more Though we falsly Suppose both to be unrevealed Sectaries Negative way of Arguing Demonstrated Proofles Mysteries Yet you cannot Positively say by an Act of faith A Sacrifice is not Purgatory is not I prove it Nothing can be Believed by Divine Faith But what God Positively Reveal's But God hath not said any where Positively There is no Purgatory no Sacrifice no Transubstantiation Ergo These Negatives cannot be Believed by Divine Faith Sectaries Grant the Major The Minor is as Evident For They shall as soon Prove That God now Positively Reveal's who shall be the last man alive in the World as Prove that Scripture Positively Teaches Purgatory is not a Sacrifice is not c. Whence I Inferr If Protestants Believe no Purgatory For Example It is not enough to say We Read of no such Place in Scripture For were this True It is Only a bare Negative And at most Showes That God What Protestants are to prove if The believe any of Their Negatives hath Omitted to Speak at all of Purgatory Which silence can Ground no Act of Faith Vnles this Consequence be good Becaus an infinite Verity neither Affirm's nor Denyes That Third Place Therfore I will Believe no Purgatory To Believe then no Purgatory or No Sacrifice It is Necessary not only to Say God saith nothing in Scripture of these Mysteries But more is required Viz. to Prove That His infallible Revelation Positively Denies Them For Before Sectaries positively Deny Catholick Doctrin They are to prove that God hath positively Denied it in his Word Before I Positively Deny a Purgatory by my Faith I must prove it Positively Denyed by an Infinite Verity Which is utterly Impossible Se this Point more amply Declared Disc 2. c. 8. n. 4. 5. 4. Perhaps the Doctor will Tell me These Negatives of No Sacrifice No Purgatory c. Are no Essentials of Protestant Religion But certain By-articles which may as well be Rejected as maintained whilst the Common and All-over Owned Doctrin of Christianity is firmly Believed If He
Answer Thus First Protestant Religion comes to Nothing for all or the most pare of it is made up of these Negatives 2. This Reformed Part is no Christian Religion If Sectaries make Their Negatives not Essential to Protestancy Their Reformed Religion is no Christian Religion For Christian Religion at last Resolvable into Gods certain Revelation cannot be Yeilded to and Denied as men Pleas Vnles we grant That that may be Denied vvhich God saith is True 3. It follows Though a Protestant Curse and Anathematize the specifical Articles of his Reformed Religion as Reformed He may yet be a good Protestant and gain Salvation by the General Faith Common to Arians and other Heteredox Christians I would gladly hear of a good Solution to these Difficulties more largely laid Forth Disc 3. c. 11. n. 13. 14. In the mean while you se How Vnevidenced a Thing Protestant Religion is which hath Neither rational Motives to make it Credible nor Protestancy hath Neither Motives to make it Credible nor a word of Scripture to make it probable so much as one Favorable Word of Scripture to make it probable You se moreover How Scripture Alone without a Church and a naked Church not manifested by Prudent Motives Leaves us in Darknes Lead's into Labyrinths Yea And utterly Impossibilitat's no less the Search Then the Finding out of true Religion 5. From the Evident Vnevidence of this new Religion the From the unevidence of Protestancy the improbability of it follows Improbability of it follows as a Property doth to its Essence For an Vnproved Religion is Improbable And an Improbable Religion is no Christian Religion Pray you Tell me If one Pretend to be a Wise man and never Gives Sign or Proof of his Wisdom to be Learned and shewes Himself a Dunse in all Company to be Liberal And An Instance Relieves none in Necessity Will you Admit of all without Proof upon the bare Word of him who Sayes He is Wise Learned and Liberal No you will Slight such Talk as Vnworthly of Credit and Hold it Improbable This is the real Case of Protestants who Vapour much Talk much of the Truth of their Pure Reformed Gospel But When Things come to the Test and Proofs are justly Called No Principles wherby to prove Protestancy probable for to make Words good They can neither Say by force of any Received Principle why They Believe Protestancy in General to be Christs True Religion Nor why They give Assent by Divine Faith to so much As to one Article within the compas of Protestancy as it is Reformed The Doctrin Asserted the proofs of it The Opposition made against Catholicks and the Method held in Arguin 〈…〉 g improbable 6. You will Say this Charge goes High And Therfore justly Require of me to Declare further wherin Chiefly Our Adversaries Speak so Improbably I Answer They do it not in One Particular only But in every Thing they Say The Doctrin Asserted by them is Improbable The Proofs of Their new Religion are Improbable The Oppositi made against our Roman Catholick Faith is Improbable The Very Method Held in Arguing against us is Improbable All Fall's All is Deficient And it Cannot be Otherwise For who is able to Perswade Himself without Assenting to a most Desperate Improbability That in this Old Age of the World when all rather Expect the Day of Iudgement Then a Settlement of a new Religion a Little Knot of men wholy Vnknown a Hundred Years Agon Should now Start up And Speak to the Purpose when They go about not only to Cast Down a long Standing Church But More To make a Novelty Credible Wherof the World had no Knowledge at all For fiften Ages Before This I say is Highly Improbable But Ad Rem 7. I say First Their Doctrin is Improbable And Prove it Protestancy not resolvable into Gods Revelation stand's on Fancy and therfore Improbable Protestants Glosses as improbable as the Arians No Doctrin Fallibly Taught can be Vltimatly Resolved into Gods Infallible Revelation But into Fallible Guesses Or Fancy Only The professed Doctrin of Protestancy as Reformed is Fallibly Taught And cannot be Resolved into Gods infallible Revelation Therfore it Finally Resteth on meer Guesses or Fancy And Consequently is Improbable Se Disc 1. c. 1. n. 6. 8. 2. It is Improbable to say That Scripture Alone without an Infallible Interpreter makes any man Certain in what he Glosses or at all Infallible For both Arians And Pelagians Read it and Gloss it Yet Err Grosly in Points most Essential Protestants who Own No infallible Interpreter both Read and Gloss As These Do by their own uncertain Guesses And therfore Gloss as Improbably Disc 1. c. 4. n. 7. 8. Vniversal Opposition makes Protestancy Improbable 9. 3. A Doctrin which at Its first Rise And after Also vvas and is still as much Opposed by Other Christians the vvhole World over As Ever Arianism vvas and is Improbable Protestancy Had and hath still This Vniversal Opposition made against it And therfore upon that sole Acount is Improbable Disc 1. c. 6. n. 3. 10. 4. To Say on the one side That Protestancy is the true Protestancy Dishonors Christ and Therfore is Improbable Orthodox Religion And on the Other to Grant That the Roman Catholick Church which Sectaries Condemn of Error Hath Infinitely Obscured Protestancy with the Splendor of most Glorious Marks of Truth manifestly known to the World as Miracles Conversions c. is Highly Improbable Becaus Dishonorable to Christ and Injurious to God who cannot make a Fals Religion more clear to Reason or more Prudently Credible then his own Truths and Verities are Disc 1. c. 12. n. 1. 2. A new coyned Heresy may be better Defended then Protestancy 11. 5. A new Coyned Heresy without Motives of Credibility may as well be Invented and better Defended by the bare Words of Scripture Then Protestancy Can be Defended But such an Heresy is Improbable Therfore Protestancy upon that Account is Much more Improbable Disc 1. c. 12. n. 3. 4. 5. Sectaries improbably allow God no more but a Lame and half Providence 12. 6. To say That God had only care of a Bible and Preserved that free from Corruption But withall Permitted His own Immaculate Spouse the Church which He Founded Pure To play the Harlot And afterward to Deceive Christians vvith Damnable Errours Is not only to Allow him a Lame and Half Providence But also to Vent a Doctrin more then improbable They must say that a Church Essentially errable may as easily lose the Consolation of Grace at Truth Both are Improbable That is Enormously Impious Sectaries say so And therfore Speak improbably Disc 2. c. 2. n. 7. 13. 7. A Church essentially Errable may loose All Truth And consequently as easily All Consolation of Grace And so Become vvholy Divorced from Christ The first Protestants Assert And Therfore must maintain the Other Which is Heretical And more then Improbable
The Sectary interpret's These and the like passages as his own Fancy suggesteth And if this Fancy hit not right He is undon for He hath no surer Principle to rely on either in this or any other Controversy but His own self conceipted Gloss The Reason is He hath no infallible All sure Principles fail Sectaries Church no clear Scripture no undoubted consent of Fathers no Vniversal Tradition distinct from his Gloss that can so much as make it probable Therfore his own unproved interpretation Doth all it is his last Principle and Strongest Hold He never goes Higher nor can advance one step further I am so confident of this Assertion that I challenge our Adversary to come to a just trial in this one Controversy A fair Offer And if He can Answer to our Authorities now quoted upon the Assurance of plain Scripture undoubted Tradition or the plain Consent of Fathers I 'll cry Peccavi and Ask forgivenes of my rashnes Thus they proceed 9. On the Other side when the Catholick interprets Scripture or Fathers alleged by Sectaries against his Faith He never makes his interpretation to be the The last Proof of a Catholick is not his Interpretation greatest light or surest Proof of His Doctrin but most prudently Answers I am bound to interpret your less clear Authority brought Against me becaus I am Assured Aliunde by the strongest Principles Imaginable whether my Gloss hit right or no that my Faith is most certain Christs Church tell 's me so Fathers Confirm it None ever Opposed it but known Hereticks Here saith the Catholick are my last He hath assured Principles to rely on Principles Upon these I rest And can you my Adversary Imagin that I being so well grounded Ought to leave my certain Principles for a Dark sentence or your unproved Conjectures It is impossible You will se this more clearly by one Example The An Instance Catholick Believes a Purgatory The Sectary saith His belief is against Scripture Wisdom 3. The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God and no torment shall touch them No such matter Answers the Catholick for if the word Righteous point at such as are perfectly just and need no Purgatory your proof is proofles or if the word Torments particularly signifies as it doth a racking or torturing forced on Malefactors to confess the Truth before a Judge the Text is wide enough from your purpose For no such punishment shall touch the just departed Now mark The Catholicks just Demand saith the Catholick Will you Sir have me to part from clear and certain Principles wheron my Faith relies for a Scripture whilst the very sense of that Scripture is at least doubtful and obscure and therfore may be well explicated without violence no way Contrary to the Doctrin of my Church It would be a sin and a great one against prudence to yeild upon so slight a ground I should make saith He an ill bargain should I as it were exchange the sure Principles A woful Exchange of sure Principles for uncertain Glosses of my Faith for your uncertain Glosses and you have no more Though you read the Text now cited till your eyes be weary 10. Upon the Occasion now offered give me leave to Tell you one great Truth Viz. All of us must Vnavoidibly either firmly Adhere to the Doctrin of our Catholick A great Verity worthy of Reflection Church in these points of Controversy Or may Sectaries Glosses sway with us we shall be sure to Assent to that which is not only an Heresy but according to Ordinary Prudence and clear Principles a thousand times more improbable and Difficil Observe it in our present Controversy Sectaries hold it no improbability to say That the Souls of good men do not enjoy compleat Happines till the Day of Judgement Any thing may pass but Popery yet this very Assertion if we respect Authority The Improbable proceeding of Sectaries and reason also abstracting from Faith is less probable then our Church Doctrin is Those quoted Scriptures prove Nothing to this purpose as we shall show presently for to find mercy at that great Day inferr's not that all Souls must stay out of Heaven till the second Coming of Christ to judgement Note the like strain in other Controversies They will have me to Deny the Infallibility of my Church and will give me in Place of it their own fallible word which I am sure cannot Stand in Competition with the sole Humane Authority of my Church They will have us to deny the Popes Supremacy And what Do they inforce on us in lieu of that Nothing but Their own jarring heads that agree in Nothing And these must Teach and Govern us in place of a Pope They will have me to Disbelieve my Scripture interpreted by the Church and to believe their Interpretations who are both Churchles and Scriptureles Mark well and judge you whether that which Sectaries They would drive us upon greater Improbabilities would Drive us upon be not in a high measure more improbable and difficile then what we now believe and it must needs be so for as I told you the only support of their whole Religion as Protestancy is neither Scripture nor the Consent of Fathers but their own Glosses forced on both without further warrant Follow them closely through all Controversies you will find I speak Truth Contrarywise The Catholicks Security when He interpret's when the Catholick Interpret's He hath ever at hand a certain Principle distinct from his Interpretation which is his security For saith He I must either Interpret an Authority when it is Dubious or desert those Convincing Principles wheron my Faith is grounded which are without Controversy most certain But to do so is madnes and a notorious sin against Prudence Thus much by way of a Notandum Our Adversaries Objections 11. We come now to Combate a little with our Adversaries Objections but the Quarrel will not be long For besides what is refuted Already and some other Parergons not much as I think to the Purpose the remainder may be easily dispatched 12. He saith first Nothing ought to be looked on as an Article of Faith among the Fathers but what They declare that they believe on the account of Divine Revelation Mark the word Declare and se Sir what a law you lay on A hard Rule given the Fathers the Fathers they must tell their Readers when they write My Masters so much you are to believe on the account of Divine Revelation and so much not or if They fail in this Declaration they may as you seem to say afterwards speak only their own fancies and Imaginations Contra. St. Austins writes of Purgatory and holds it as we shall se presently But Declares not Explicitly that the Doctrin is of Divine Revelation nor Explicitly that it is his own fancy If therfore He Declares neither Explicitly upon what Principle The Argument is
That 's not enough Sectaries are to Prove it Beares that Sense here An Instance That the Word EST in our Saviours Proposition hath determinatly that Sense and no Other You know Scripture saith Hic est filius meus dilectus This is my beloved son c. Now no Man can Inferr Becaus EST sometimes is Rendred Signifies That Here it looses its Proper sense And only Avail's as much as if you Said Christ only Signifies or is not otherwise the Son of his Father Then a material Picture Hang'd on a Wall is a Sign or Figure of the Prototypon This cannot be admitted of Vnles I say a Stronger Principle which is Impossible Force us to Approve of such an Heretical sense And thus We Discours in our Present Matter 3. Note 3. All the Principles which can be Thought on to Force Catholicks from the Received Sense of Christs Own Words or to Favour our Adversaries Cause must be Reduced to one of these Heads To No known Principle upholds the Doctrin of Sectaries Plain speaking Scripture To Vniversal Tradition To the Catholick sense of Christs Orthodox Church in former Ages or Finally to the General Consent of Fathers If none of these Principles Vphold Protestants Doctrin it Fall's of it self And wholy Relies on Fancy Thus much supposed 4. Here is my Proposition and an Inference also A Proposition against Sectaries Sectaries cannot by virtue of any one of these now Named Principles VVithdraw Catholicks from the Plain Received Sense of Christs VVords They cannot Prove that EST in our Saviours Affirmation Imports only as much as if you said it Signifies Therfore the Doctrin which Denies the real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is wholy Vnwarrantable and Built on Fancy Only 5. The Proofs of my Assertion are as Vndeniably The Proofs of it are no less clear Then the Proposition it self Evident as the very Assertion it self For it is Manifest No Scripture plainly Teaches I say no More now That the Verb EST in Christs Proposition Beares only this sense it Signifies And it is as Clear no Vniversal Tradition Approves of this new Fancied Sense What then Remains But that our Adversaries take Recours to some Ancient Orthodox Church or To the General Consent of Fathers I say therfore If they A Fair offer made to Sectaries can Name any Vniversal Church Nay any particular Church Reputed Orthodox the whole world Over That Interpreted these Words as They do or Clearly Denyed Christs true Body and Blood To be under the Formes of Bread and Wine after Consecration or Believed that Natural bread only hath the Name of Christs Body Though it be Really no more But a Sign only a Figure only a Resemblance only of his Body If I say Protestants you shall se will never Answer Directly to what is here proposed any one of these things can be proved They 'l Come of Gloriously And Gain Thousands to their Opinion But I know all is in a high Measure Impossible I say a Sign only a Figure only For We Catholicks both speak with the Fathers and Truely Believe The Eucharist to be a Sacrament And consequently a Sign of Invisible Grace Yea and a Figure also a Memorial of Christ Himself and his Sacred Passion But this is not the Controversy between us The sole Question therfore is Whether it be so purely a Sign or Figure that What They are to Answer To. the Thing Signified is not in the Sign And the Verity in the Figure That is Whether Christs Sacred Body and Blood be not Truely and Substantially within the outward Sign and really Present There This VVe Affirm and Sectaries Deny Though never Orthodox Church Denyed it with Them 6. To clear this Point And Add If Possible more Weight to our Assertion We Have an Ample Holy and Learned Catholick Roman Church whose sole Authority set Scripture aside is the Greatest on Earth The sole Authority of our Roman Church is Sufficient to Convince Sectaries of Errour Which confessedly hath believed and taught this Doctrin of the Real Presence for at least a Thousand Years I say Ever since Christianity began And can any one prudently Perswade Himself That so Chois and Learned a Society That yet Speak's in Christs ovvn Language And Literally believes his words as They are in the Gospel Hath for so long a time lived in a Cheat and taught Millions of Soules a most Damnable Errour Admit of this Vast Improbability We have yet a Demonstration No Other Orthodox Society Ever opposed our Catholick Doctrin against Sectaries And 't is No Orthodox Church can be named that ever Opposed Found fault or Blamed the Belief of the Roman Church Concerning this Mystery Therfore the Doctrin of this Learned Society is undoubtedly Certain upon a double Account that Christ Taught it And no Vniversal Church ever Condemned it 7. In the last Place we are to Say a Word of the other The last Principle which is the consent of Fathers Principle Which is the Vnanimous consent not of a small Number but of Many most Ancient Learned and Holy Fathers These can well Declare what Scripture Teaches of This Mystery And what Christs Orthodox Church ever Believed If All Readers Have not the Originals at hand They may see them in the Authors Cited above I shall only Hint at a few For to Transcribe All or Half of them And Quote the Places Exactly Would Needlesly lengthen a Digression which I Intended to make short In passing I 'll only say thus much If Sectaries with all the Skill Fathers express for Catholick Doctrin They have can Interpret These few Testimonies Which I shall briefly Glance at They may with the same Ease Yea And far less labour Explicate the Words of the Council of Trent and make that to speak Protestancy Or to Deny the Real Presence 8. Some Fathers therfore Dogmatically Teach What we take into our mouths is not that which nature These Fathers are Faithfully cited Though to avoid Tediousnes in a short Digression I thought it best not to give the Reader more Trouble then is necessary by quoting Exactly the places made But what the Blessing hath Consecrated And that by Consecration the very Nature of bread is changed Thou hast learned that of bread is made the Body of Christ and the wine and water is put into the Chalice But by the consecration of the Heavenly Word it is made Blood The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Sacred Invocation of the Adored Trinity were simple bread and wine But the Invocation being once don the Bread indeed is made the Flesh of Christ and the VVine his Blood The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in Nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made Flesh Christ by his own Will once changed water into wine and is He not worthy to be Believed that He changed Wine into Blood Mark a substantial
is Given for you They Answer No. It was not his Body but a Sign Only of His Body Given for us Observe well This Interpretation of a Sign Only is a Gloss of Fancy For neither the Word Sign is in Scripture Nor a Sign Only is any Ancient Father We Cite Again that Unanswerable Text of St. Luke This is the Chalice the new Testament in my Blood which Chalice is shed for you And mark the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Case and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Different Case What Answer our Sectaries Marry Beza Tell 's us St. Luke Here either spak a Solacism or a Marginal Note Cre'pt by chance into the Text Here is His best Solution And who Tell 's Mr. Beza so But his own Fancy We Produce moreover Those Testimonies of Ancient Fathers Briefly Hinted at Above And say no Wit of Man can solve Them Chiefly That Authority of St. Cyril Of VVine changed into Blood as water was Once changed into VVine They Answer The Change was only Moral of Wine Deputed to a Holy Use which is Against the very Nature of the Instance And consequently a Strong Thought of Fancy We say No Universal Tradition No Ancient Church ever Opposed the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church concerning this Mystery Herein our Ad 〈…〉 rsaries are Silenced And cannot Design the Orthodox Church that opposed our Doctrin as both We and the whole world beside now oppose their Novelty Parallel therfore the Proceedings of Sectaries Against us A Parallel between their Proceeding and ours Sectaries mangle and pervert most clear Authorities with ours Against them And you will find them to stand upon Quicksand without Principles The very Straits They are put to Demonstrat this Evidently whilst as you have seen They Mangle Pervert Misconstrue and Gloss Every clear Authority cited against Them And We on the other side candidly Admit both of Scripture and Fathers Quoted by Them without Any other Gloss but what the very Text and Context of the Testimonies Allow of 5. And Hence it is that you Always have our Adversaries Sectaries bold in asserting but weak at their Proofs bold in Asserting But Cold Vnmanly and Weak at their Proofs Besides what is now said the true Reason is No Proof can touch much less Vainquish a Verity that Stands firm upon undeniable Principles Plain Scripture the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers undeniable What our Catholick Proofs are Tradition the Authority of a Holy and Vniversal Church and this Negative No Church ever blamed our Doctrin are Strong Supports for the Faith we Profess And can our Sectaries who are as Scriptureles as Fatherles as Fatherles as Churchles and Finally Destitute of All other Principles Think to Dant us with a few Gleancings Gathered Sectaries cannot deny Them now out of This now out of that Ancient Writter when They Evidently se with their Eyes the whole Torrent of Antiquity contrary to Them Can they Perswade Themselves that Because one Theodoret For example Of Theodorets Authority Saith the Mystical Signs after the Sanctification Recede not from Their Nature but Remain in their first Substance Figure and Form are Seen and Touched as Before which words are literally True if we Speak as We Admit of his Words this Author Doth of the visible Accidents of Bread and Wine Can we I say Think that this one Authority Though it were a Hundred times more Difficil Hath Weight enough to turn the Scales Force Enough to Drive us from the Faith which Scripture Church and Fathers most manifestly Deliver It is impossible The obscurer places of Scripture and Fathers are to be Interpreted by the clearer All know when Divines Explicate Scripture or Fathers They Interpret the obscurer Passage by the Clearer And never make the Darker Place to give Light to the more Evident Observe Now. Theodoret saith the Mystical Signs Recede not from their Nature But Remain as before I say so too The only Difficulty is what he Meanes by the Word Signs and Sectaries Glosses without Proof Theodoret cannot be supposed to contradict other most Learned Fathers He is to be Explicated were he obscure by the sense of other Fathers Nature Sectaries Tell us The Sense is Bread and wine Recede not from Their True Substance First This is their Gloss without Proof For the Visible Signs of bread and wine are not the Invisible Substance of Bread and Wine 2. Theodoret in all law of Arguing when His plain Words Force not on us this sense of Sectaries ought to be Catholickly Interpreted And Had we no other Reason but this That it cannot be Reason To make so Learned a Father Though once he stray'd a little to Clash with all Antiquity it were Enough At most His Words are Doubtful And upon that Account capable of Explication is it not Therfore more Just to Explicate Them by the Clear and Vndeniable Doctrin of a Whole Church And other Fathers then to Draw these Fathers from their Open and Manifest Sense to His if it be supposed Obscure as in Truth well Pondered it is not Let Reason Judge Here. 6. By what is said Already We may well pitty the desperate Condition of Sectaries who Pertinaciously Defend an Heresy without so much as a colour of Sectaries want Principles Scripture Church or the General Consent of Fathers For these Principles and none can Parallel them Most evidently Fail our Adversaries Urge them Again and Again to speak more Pertinently to their Cause then is Don hitherto You get nothing but the Old Story told over again And it will never be Better for I se too Plainly Their Humor It is God knows Sectaries Tristing and wherin it Appear's To spend or rather to Mispend their whole Life and Labour in Trifles They Think to Cavil at the Proofs of our Doctrin Establisheth Theirs As if it were sufficient to make their Novelty good Because they can Talk against our Ancient Faith Just as if One to Prove Himself an Honest Man might do it Pithily by calling his Neighbour a Knave 7. I must yet Add one Significant Word more And 'T is very Necessary to lay forth our Adversaries Weaknes as well in This as in All other Controversies Observe Solid Proofs for a Doctrin stand firm and unshaken against all Opponents it VVhen Proofs of a Doctrin Stand on solid Grounds and Principles the Objections Against it are like Fathers cast Against the Wind forceles And return upon the Opponents to their Confusion wherof I think you Have Already seen Enough in this Present Controversy But contrarywise When the Proofs are Meagre Barren and Void of Strength They are ever so with Sectaries The Very Opposite Principles for Truth Dash All Discountenance All and Evidently Shew those Arguments to be Feeble And Truely would our Did Sectaries Proceed Candidly They would se Themselves Convinced Adversaries once Deal Ingeniously Candor would
exclamation The Prophets Lesson and the wise Counsel of the son of Syrach the Wisdom and Knowledge of God! Quis cognovit sensum Domini Who hath known the mind of our Lord or who hath been his Counseller Learn well that good Lesson Esay 55. 9. My Thoughts are not your Thoughts for as the Heavens are Exalted above the Earth sâ— are my Wayes Exalted above Yours and my Cogitations above your Cogitations Learn more of JESU the Wise son of Syrach Eccles 33. 15. And Look with Him upon all Teach â—â— to Reverence Gods permission of Evil. the Works of the Highest You se Two against Two and One Against One Against Evil is Good Against Death is Life Against a Iust man is a Sinner And I Add Against Truth you have Heresy S. Austin lib. 11. de Civitate c. 18. Call's S. Austins Discours of Contrarieties in Gods works these Things Râ—rum Antitheta Contrarities in the works of God And moreover Assures us That His Goodnes would never have Created either Men or Angels in whom Evil was Foreseen Nisi pariter nosset quibus eos Bonorum usibus accommodaret unles He had also Known how Useful Subservient and Beneficial I 'll would Prove at last to Vertuous Good Men. Atque ita in ordinem seculorum tanquam pulcherrimum Carmen etiam ex quibusdam quasi Antithetis honestaret And How that in the Cours of Ages He might Commend and set Forth all We Se like a well made Vers with certain Contrarieties Evil graceth virtâ—â— and Errour gives a lustre to Truth Evil Therfore Hath its Good and Gives a Grace to Virtue Errour Add's a Comliness to Truth And the more Ugly Heresy is the More it Sett's forth the Lustre of Christs Orthodox Church And makes it glorious S. Austin confirm's the Doctrin Pictor novit They are Words of S. Austin Serm. De Diversis c. 5. fine ubi ponat nigrum colorem ut sit decora pictura nescit Deus ubi ponat peccatores ut sit ordinata creatura A Painter Knowes well where to lay Darker Colours That his Piece may be Fair to the eye And Shall not God Know where to Place Sinners the like is of Hereticks That His Creatures may Therby Appear And shâ—wâ—s of what use erring men are to the Church Seemly and in Order Yes most Assuredly This great Doctor Saith yet More lib. de Vera Beligione c. 6. Haec enim Catholica Ecclesia per totum orbem validè lateque diffusa omnibus errantibus ad profectus suos ad eorum Correctionem cum Evigilare voluerint c. This Catholick Church so far and neer Diffused makes Benefit of all Poor erring Souls Yea and Doth so for their Amendment when They Shall Please to Awake out of their Drowsines It makes Vse of Gentils to let them Se the Wonders it Works of Hereticks to Prove its Holy Doctrin of Schismaticks to give them a Lesson of better Stability of Iewes to Shevv them the Beauty of Christian Religion c. So it is All the Blindnes in the world saith S. Austin els Were Ad aliquem usum Sanctorum ordinatur is Ordained for some Heresy serviceable to the Church Profit and Service of Gods Elect and Chosen People 8. Conclude therfore As there will be Deluded Souls whether Iewes or Gentils As There will be Sin Oppression and Open Injustice to the End of Ages Sic oportet Haereses esse So there will be Heresies also No wonder that some wilfully Shut their Eyes to the Evidence of the Church And Those who Wilfully Shut their Eyes to the Evidence of a Glorious Mother Church And wonder not at it For you Know That the Son of God Himself came into the World Et mundus cum non cognovit And the World would not know Him His sacred Doctrin was Preach't All over But Seemed Iudaeis Scandalum Gentibus Stultitia A Scandal to the Iewes and a Foolery When the Son of God was not known to All. to the Gentils What Marvel is it then that His Own Holy Church Be less Regarded by Dispirited Souls and the Doctrin therof set Light by Have Patience Wait on Gods Good Leisure No Hart is so Hard but Grace can Soften it These Dimm Eyes of Deceived Men Will at last be Opened Et videbit omnis caro Salutare Dei And all shall Se and Know That as There is no Other Saviour but One Christ our Lord So There is no other Church but No other Christ but one No other Church but the one only Roman Catholick Church One Wherin Salvation long Sought for can be Found But in the One only Ancient Apostolical Catholick and Holy Roman Church CREDO SANCTAM ECCLESIAM CATHOLICAM FINIS THE CHAPTERS IN ORDER THE FIRST DISCOVRS Of an Infallible Church and Infallible Teachers CHAP. I. There are Infallible Teachers of true Christian Religion Page 16. CHAP. II. The Infallible Doctrin of Christ Necessarily requires Infallible Teachers 20 CHAP. III. Other Proofs for Teachers and a Church infallible 29 CHAP. IV. Replyes to these Arguments are Answered 36 CHAP. V. A Controversy with some later Sectaries concerning Moral certainty 49 CHAP. VI. Faith only morally certain is no Faith Protestants have no Moral certainty of Protestant Religion 63 CHAP. VII How Sectaries err in the search made after Religion Of their weak and improbable Opposition The Objection is more fully Answered 70 CHAP. VIII A few Reflections made upon these Motives of Credibility No Religion hath Motives founding moral certainty but One only which is 〈◊〉 Roman Catholick Religion 78 CHAP. IX A short Digression concerning the shufling of Protestants in this matter 88 CHAP. X. Protestants have no rational Motives wherby their new Faith is evidenced to be so much as Probable 96 CHAP. XI Arguments drawn from Reason against Protestants upon the consideration of These declared Motives 114 CHAP. XII Protestants for want of rational Motives cannot convert an Infidel to Christian Faith 119 CHAP XIII Protestancy for want of Rational Motives dishonor's Christ and makes way for any new coyned Heresy 128 THE SECOND DISCOVRS Of Scripture CHAP. I. Scripture is useles if none declare infallibly the sense of it 135 CHAP. II. The Fallacy of Protestants concerning Scripture and the Interpretation of Scripture is discovered 144 CHAP. III. All substantials of Faith are not plain in Scripture without an infallible Teacher 153 CHAP. IV. Sole Scripture without an infallible Interpreter can be no Rule of Faith Protestants have no Scripture for their Religion as it is Protestancy 162 CHAP. V. The Reason of private men and their private spirit cannot interpret Scripture 169 CHAP. VI. The new mode of Protestants Misinterpreting Scripture which proves the Churches Infallibility is more Amply Refuted 179 CHAP. VII More of this subject 187 CHAP. VIII The new Mode of Sectaries misinterpreting Scripture destroyes Protestant Religion 195 CHAP. IX Of the Means left by Almighty God to interpret Scripture Truely One
Their own self-voting from the nature of a rational Proof and Principle When a Rebellion is manifest in a Kingdom the sole Authority of them who began it is insufficient to make it Justifiable And the Authority of Sectaries is as forceles to Justify their Evident Schism against the Church Whilst Evidence comes not against our Church it stand's most firm upon its ancient possessed right This long Possession proves our Church Orthodox Examples Hereof Mr. Stillingfleets Exceptions against our pleading Possession are proved to be weak forceles and meer ungrounded Suppositions Though the Obligation of proving Evidently lies on our Adversaries who are the Aggressors yet we prove not only a personal Succession of our Popes and Prelates in forgoing Ages but also manifest a Quiet Possession of Truth that descended with these continued Popes and Bishops from the dayes of S. Peter to this very Age. No just Exception can be made against our Tradition which is Evidently its one Proof for there cannot be a clearer Mr. Stillingfleet supposeth that our Right of pleading Truth is a meer Occupancy He is to prove this becaus he is the Accuser No Antecedent Law hath determined Contrary to what we Challenge by vertue of our Possession We have both the Law for us and ancient Possession besides And there is no Reason when we allege two Proofs Law and Possession that we Quite the one which is Possession as Mr. Stillingfleet pretend's we should do which is against all rational Discours of this subject It is improbable to say that Protestants first saw these supposed errours imputed to our Church when others as Quick-sighted more numerours and Learned then They saw them not for ten whole Ages before Luther It is a degree of madnes to suppose that all those worthy and Learned Professors of the Catholick Faith were either so stupidly blind as not to have seen such supposed errours or so wickedly Hypocritical as to have wincked at them after their plain Discovery It is a Paradox to say that our new men saw these too plain and visible errours when that great Catholick Church which Sectaries make more large then the Roman saw them not but permitted Rome to countenance these supposed errours without check or reprehension Of the Impossibility of errours entring the Church after the first 4. or 5. hundred years Though Sectaries should convince which is impossible the Roman Catholick Church to be guilty of errour yet they cannot show that they have set Christian Faith right again on its old Foundations as it once stood pure All Principles fail them in this particular Fancy only and nothing like a rational Proof uphold's this charge of errour against our Church Mr Stillingfleets Assertions are refuted If the Roman Catholick Church has erred by imposing unreasonable conditions Sectaries who Profess themselves fallible in all they say may have erred more and spoil'd all they went about to mend Nothing can be more unreasonable then to make a few Rebellious people receding from an ancient Church first to accuse it and then to sit judges in their own cause and condemn it None can probably show that these late Reformers of Protestants who opposed all other Religions are untainted or purely Orthodox As no men before the Donatists made the Church so strait as they did so never Christians before these later Sectaries made it so wide as to hold in it all the Hereticks in the world Protestancy as Protestancy is no Christian Religion at all if the belief of that Doctrin which is common to all Christians be amply sufficient to Salvation Protestants may Anathematize all the Doctrin within the compass of their reformed Religion and yet be saved THE FOVRTH DISCOVRS Of the Churches Evidence and Improbability of Protestant Religion PRotestants as they make not good their own Doctrin by Proofs grounded on certain Principles so they never impugn the Roman Catholick Faith by rational Arguments Catholicks contrarywise prove their Churches Doctrin by undeniable Principles The Grounds of Catholick Religion are briefly laid forth As it is an evident Principle that all those Wife and Learned Doctors who taught Christians Popery for a thousand years were neither fools nor perversly blind So it is more evident that God suffered not those millions of Christians instructed by these Teachers to be grosly abused with fals Doctrin whilst there was no other Catholick Society in the world â—o unbeguile them All other Sectaries who deserted the Roman Catholick Church erred grosly and it is improbable to think that Protestants only among so many straying Teachers were the only priviledged people elected by God to mend had any thing been amiss in a old decayed Church without mixture of errour or marring more then they mended Protestancy is unevidenced and an improbable Religion that is no Religion but a fancied opinion No Doctrin fallibly taught as Protestancy is can be ultimately resolved into Gods infallible Revelation Scripture alone without an infallible Interpreter makes no man infallible A Doctrin which at its first rise was and is still opposed by all Christians excepting the Sectaries who broach it is as improbable as Arianism A Church essentially errable may loâ—s all Truth and consequently all grace and so become divorced from Christ. A Doctrin proved improbable by undoubted Principles cannot be made credible by rational Arguments unles Truth be contrary to Truth Of the slight way of Sectaries Arguing against Catholick Doctrin Mr. Stillingfleet like his other Brethren in a Discours of Purgatory begins with Ieers with Mistakes and dissembling of Difficulties He states not the Question rightly between the Latin and Greeks The Dispute between the Latins and Greeks is clearly laid forth by Leo Alatius a Grecian What passed in the Council of Florence concerning This Dispute The Greeks most certainly both before and after the Council held a place of punishment for souls departed from which place they are freed by the Prayers of the Living They also hold that souls enioy the beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement The weaknes of our Adversaries cause is best seen by a Parallel of Proofs for Purgatory and against it The Catholick Principles for Purgatory S. Austins was not the first that held Purgatory Mr. Stillingfleet misunderstands two passages in S. Austin The Sectary when He Explicates Scripture or Fathers makes his own Gloss the surest ground of his Interpretation When the Catholick explicates a dubious passage He relies on a sure Principle distinct from his Interpretation Objections are Answered How the Supplications of the Church respect mercy and Forgivenes to be shewed the just at the Day of Judgement An Objection is proposed in behalf of Sectaries and solved in another Discours concerning the Blessed Sacrament The Grounds of our Catholick Doctrin for the Real Presence The contrary Opinion of Sectaries is proved to be meer Fancy Sectaries cannot by vertue of any one received Principle remove the Catholick from the plain and Obvious senfe of Christs most significant words The
Testimonies of Fathers are as clear for our Catholick Doctrin as the words of the Council of Trent A Parallel of Proofs for and against the Doctrin of the Real Presence The way of Sectaries is chiefly to loos Themselves in proposing difficulties against us without casting a serious thought on sure Principles that solve them They find the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament uneasy to sense but reflect not that They believe two or three other Mysteries fully as hard if not more difficile for Example a Trinity the Incarnation and Original sin It is most Evident what Ever Principle whether it be Scripture Church Authority or consent of Fathers that moves to believe these Verities that very Principle is as pressing forceable and urging yea and often more express for the Belief of our Sacrament wherat they boggle What the Sectary is obliged to prove if He except against our grounds in this Controversy We admit of Christs plain Words according to their most obvious sense we find them so understood by a number of the most venerable ancient Fathers as we understand them and moreover have a Learned Church that speak's as both Scripture and Fathers speak Can Sectaries now exact of us that we leave these strong Principles and rely on their word because They will have us do so It is impossible unles They give us in lieu of the se as plain Scripture as plain Testimonies of Fathers and produce the warrant of some other Church more ancient and Orthodox then ours is that once Patronized their Novelty If they say They can explicate our Scripture and ancient Fathers I have Answered above Their explication is worth nothing unles it be grounded on more express Testimonies that favour their Novelty then our contrary authorities are for Catholick Doctrin If again they reply As we must explicate their Authorities brought against us so They can explicate ours alleged against them I Answer if a stop be made here neither they no◠we yet come to the last Principles But here will be the final Decision of all We appeal to the clear Words of Scripture They have Evidently non so express We appeal to the most manifest Testimonies of Fathers delivered i◠this Controversy The Council of Trent speaks not more clearly They Oppos◠a few dark Sentences help't on with their Glosses contrary to the Fathers sense a◠is largely proved Lastly we appeal to the Judgement of our Ancient and fa. extended Church Herein they are forced to yeild for they have no Church comparable to it that Defends their Novelty The Churches Evidence Why God permits Heresy to be in the World A FEW NOTES UPON MR. POOLES APPENDIX AGAINST CAPTAIN EVERARD 1. I Say a few for I must be brief finding very little to stay me in the Appendix which is not directly solved in the foregoing Treatis And therfore wonder not it I often remit the Reader to the former Discourses as occasion requires it being impossible to reply to an Adversary upon this subject of Infallibility without touching on what is sayd already where the Direct Answer is given to His objections I would not indeed have writ thus much against Mr. Poole but only to hinder a little vanity in the man for if no notice had bin taken of his Appendix He might perhaps have thought too well of his work and judged it so learned a piece that none would Dare to meddle with it To gain what time is possible I pass by all His jeers his harsher language and Calumnies cast on Catholick c. Those Personal exceptions also uniustly made against the Converted Captain and some vulgar Difficulties solved a hundred times shall give me no work at present who will only fall and closely upon that which Mr. Poole its likely may think most material and to the purpose And because the best strength He hath lies in the beginning of the Appendix I 'le examin that most and make his errours manifest by sound proofs and Principles Briefly 2. The occasion of Mr. Everards Conversion was a Discours held with a Catholick Gentleman Who Asked me saith the Captain whether I was so certainly infallibly assured of the Truth of the Christian Religion that it was not possible for me or those that taught me Christianity to be mistaken therin and He gave me this reason for his question that otherwise as to me Christianity could be no more then probably true And we could not condemn the Iew or Turk or Pagan since they were as well perswaded of their several wayes as we could be of ours upon a fallible certainty And for ought we knew not having any infallible certainty for our Christianity some of them might be in the right and we in the wrong way sor it is possible you may be mistaken Thus Mr. Poole Appendix page 8. who slight's the Discours as silly weak and ungrounded 3. I say Contrary The Discours is strong rational and most convincing The ground of my Assertion further declared Disc 1. c. 1. 2. is thus A Doctrin which by vertue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on cannot but be fallibly taught by all Teachers now within the bounds of Christianity is by force of its Proposition and merit of the Doctrin precisely considered most certainly fallible and may be fals But such a taught Doctrin which by vertue of all the Principles it hath or can rely on and merit also of the Doctrin or force of its Proposition is fallible and may be fals is not the certain Doctrin of Christ which cannot by the vertue of any Principle it hath or merit of the Doctrin and force of its proposition be either fallible or fals Ergo such a taught Doctrin is not Christs certain Doctrin which neither is nor can be fallible or fals Now further A Doctrin which is not Christs certain Doctrin because remo 〈…〉 from certain Principles can be no other but the Doctrin of mans errable judgement or Fancy And consequently gives as little Assurance to him that teaches it fallibly or those that hear it as that of the Jewes gives to them Observe my reason equally Convincing in both cases Therfore we say the Doctrin of a Jew gives If you say the Doctrin of a Jew is not only fallible but fals also you suppose what is to be proved against him no Assurance to Him that Teaches and those who hear it because it is removed from all infallible Principles and relies only on his errable judgement or Fancy that teaches it but the Fallible Doctrin of these Sectaries now mentioned is also removed from all Infallible Principles for no man amongst them can deliver Doctrin infallibly Therfore it relies only on an errable judgement or fancy that teaches it and by good consequence is none of Christs infallible Doctrin But if it be none of Christs Doctrin it gives no more Assurance to them that Hear it than the Doctrin af a Jew gives to any of his Sect Ergo. Here briefly is my
Ground and I would se it Answered 4. Some perhaps will say the Doctrin of these Sectaries relies on Gods Word and that alone is a sure and infallible Principle I answer if we speak of Sectaries particular Doctrin as reformed They have not one Article clearly no nor so much as probably grounded on Gods express word for Scripture saith no where that Faith only justifies that all Churches are fallible that there is no Purgatory no Sacrifice of the Altar c. Ergo these Doctrins want certain Principles Now if they Reply Though these particular Doctrins are not express in Scripture yet the general Truths of Christianity are And They rely on these not careing for more I Answer Though these Verities as revealed be infallible in themselves yea and infallible also to the Catholick that admit's of them as infallible for the certain Testimony of his Church yet no man no Church no Oracle of Truth ever hitherto assured the Protestant infallibly that they are infallible for all these with him are fallible therfore They are removed from the nature of being certain Principles in order to his Faith and Doctrin also unles He say that the Objective infallibility of Scripture is evident ex terminis to the very eyes that read the book which is proved improbable Disc 1. c. 12. n. 4. Wherof more presently I Answer 2. If the Objective infallibility of these great Verities be a certain Principle to the Protestant it either Derives into his understanding that teaches them a Subjective infallbility in order to his Doctrin or leaves him as He was before lyable to mistake and errour if the first be granted He is Subjectively infallible when He teaches and this He will not hear of Grant the second viz. That He is lyable to mistake and errour in his teaching He may well miss of the objective Truth because He only saith fallibly what God speaks infallibly and consequently his Doctrin ultimatly resolved saith no more but timidly thus much Perhaps I declare what God speaks and it may be not for my Declaration is fallible and may be fals Therfore you Christians who hear me can believe nothing infallibly becaus my very Teaching is doubtful And it is against the nature of a doubt to convey certainty into any understanding Se Disc 1. c. 4. n. 7. 8. Now if you Ask why it is doubtful though he speak truth as it were by Chance I answer the Reason is Because he hath no Pâ—iâ—ciple which determinates his teaching to say that Infallibly which God speak's infallibly The External Principle of Scripture makes him no more Infallible than the worst of Hereticks who read it And all other Principles He works by are lyable to errour And here briefly you se the difference between the Truth of an Act and its Certitude The first only sayes in contingent matters a conformity with the Object The other a necessary Determination to Truth by Principles not liable to errour And Sectaries alwaies want these Principles whilst They teach a Doctrin fallibly If here they take recourse to moral certainty only and think that sufficient turn to the fift Chapter of the first Discours and you will se them evidently confuted It is lost labour to repeat again what is sayd in that place 5. These grounds supposed you shall se how Mr. Pooles Exceptions against them comes to nothing Let us saith He P. 9. n. 2. examin a little the strength of this pretty Proposition viz. That if we be not infallibly assured of the Truth of Christianity Iewes Turks and Pagans are as well perswaded of their wayes as we Christians of ours What a mad Assertion saith He is this that nothing is credible but what is infallibly certain and that there is no difference between Probabilities and Improbabilities c. To this I answer in a word you shall have the Reason hereafter Nothing in true Christianity is credible but what both may and must be believed by most certain faith in other moral matters things are morally credible though we arrive not to certainty but Faith hath its exceptions Mr. Poole goes on I am not infallibly certain that there is such a place as Iamaica for it is possible that all Geographers may mistake and Travellers may lye Therfore I am as uncertain that there is a sea passage to China by the North c. I am not certain if I find a Calf in a field but that it may as some time it was drop't from the Clouds but will any sober man think that it came not from a cow He hath other instances to this purpose And the man if I mistake not would here liken the cettainty of that Truth we have of Christianity to the certainty we have of Iamaica and a calf coming from a Cow and the Doctrin of Judaism He would have so improbable as if one should say the Calf was dropt from the Clouds In a word if He dispute with a Jew He will hear that his whole Discours is Petitio principij and that his Instances of Iamaica and a calf are nothing to the purpose because he supposeth what should be proved viz. That the Doctrin of a Iew is so improbable to that Sect as this Antagonist makes it And that the taught Doctrin of Sectaries is so highly Probable in order to them as is here supposed Alas the Iew wil utterly silence Mr. Poole with this convincing Reason What ever becomes of my Doctrin I tell you your Protestant taught Doctrin which may be fals is no better than mine because it is not ultimately resolvable into Gods infallible Revelation which cannot be fals That it cannot be thus resolved is evident because a Doctrin that is fallible and may be fals though true in it self as fallible and lyable to falsity cannot be as it were cast or laid on Gods infallible Veracity that essentially Disowns and rejects all Doctrin that 's fallible and may be fals Therfore as Fallible ultimately resolved it must be brought to its one home which is not Gods infallible Revelation but to meer fancy or some other uncertainty For example Put the case that an English Synode truely Defines Christ Iesus is God and man yet so that the Definition by vertue of all the Principles it hath or its own intrinsick merit is fallibly Delivered One reflects on this Definition and consider's the Truth of it which is a conformity with its object as also the Weaknes of it which is Fallibility for want of Principles that Determin it to Truth I Ask now why Do Sectaries believe Christ to be God and man by this Fallible Definition 'T is one of your Acts of Faith is it not You must Answer you Believe so because God hath said it in Scripture Very good But I Ask again Hath he said this Fallibly by a Revelation that 's capable of falsity No must evidently His Revelation is infinitly certain Ergo I say your Definition or Act of Faith Quâ fallibilis or as meerly fallible cannot
under that Notion of Fallibility rest upon an infallible Veracity for this infallible Veracity hath neither measure nor Proportion with a fallible Assent nor can a fallible Assent have any measure or Proportion with an infallible Revelation Mark therfore well the Resolution of this whole Assent I believe Christ to be God and man by a fallible Act which may be fals because Gods infallible Revelation which can neither be fallible or fals Moves me to believe so And most justly call it no Faith at all for an infallible Revelation Moves none to believe fallibly therfore the tendency of this Act as it is Fallible Moves forward without a Divine Motive to rely on and hitt's not upon the Strength of Gods certain Revelation but leaves that and runn's no man knows whither or stands without any motive You se therfore that Gods Revelation which is infallible cannot support a fallible Assent and consequently the very best Acts of our Sectaries Belief are no Faith wherof more Disc 1. Chap. 5. and 6. I say the very best Acts. For you may distinguish two sorts of them in Sectaries The first tend to their own particular Novelties and these are both fals and Fallible The other Acts adhere to the general Truths of Christianity And all these though conformable to their objects are yet subjectively fallible and consequently have not the strength of any firm or supernatural Principle to uphold them as you may se in places now cited 6. But we have not yet don with Mr. Poole there are more exceptions against Him Mark his words If saith He we be not infallibly assured of the Truth of Christianity Ieâ—es and Turks are as well perswaded of their waies as we are of ours And then Ask's what a mad Assertion is this that makes no difference between Probabilities and Improbabilities Now here his Instances follow of Iamaica and a Calf and I think He would say That the Truth of Christianity is probable and so highly Probable as that there is a Iamaica And that Iudaism is so improbable as that a Calfe found in a field should be thought to be dropt from the Clouds 7. In the first place we are to explicate more fully what M. Poole huddles up in these general Terms The Truth of Christianity Three Things therfore may be here reflected on which essentially constitute Christian Religion The first is the Object of it which is Gods infallible Revelation The second is the matter believed by vertue of this infallible Revelation The third is a firm act of Faith that tends into the Revelation and the matter Revealed upon that Devine motive Infallibly Proposed And this firm Assent of Faith intrinsecally Denominates all good Christians Faithfull Believers I say infallibly Proposed For if a Revelation lie as it sometime doth dark in Holy Scripture a Proponent is necessary that brings it to more light And as I noted Disc 1. C. 4. According to the measure or degres of certitude which the Proponent gives to an obscure Revelation An Assent in the Hearer followes and no stronger If He only say probably God speaks thus The assent can be no more but probable if with truth he say certainly it is certain These things supposed be pleased to reflect once more on Mr. Pooles words What a mad Assertion is This That nothing is Credible He means concerning the Truth of Christianity but what is infallibly certain and that there is no difference between Probabilities and Improbabilities He would say it is madnes to judge so and Wisdom to make the Truth of Christianity highly Probable and Judaism improbable 8. Now I say Nothing that essentially Constitutes the truth of Christianity is less then certain Nothing in it can be so meanly thought of as to be called only probable And first if we speak of the Material Objects believed These Solely and Objectively considered may we use proper Terms are neither Probable nor improbable for there is no Probability in Objects every thing being what it is in its self independent of my Probable or Improbable Assertion No man when He see 's the sun so darkly through a Cloud that he cannot say whether it be the sun or no yet thinks it is Call's it a Probable sun the Probability is in his act that makes a judgement of it and not in the object Again if we speak of Gods Revelation that Assures these Material Objects to be as they are spoken That very Revelation because it proceeds from an Infinit intellectual power is properly not only infallible but infinitly more infallible then all the words of men and Angels are put together And here is no place for meer probability only though we think of the greatest Imaginable He therfore that Parifies the moral Certainty one hath of Jamaica with the more then Metaphysical certainty of Gods Revelation Doth not only hideoufly err but wrongs God and his eternal verity 3. If we speak of the internal Assent of Faith which Denominates us true Christian Believers and tend's into Gods infallible Revelation upon the perfection of its infallibility as also into the Material Object infallibly revealed This very Act goes far beyond the strongest probability and is more certain then that judgement is which men have of Iamaica The Reason is That which uphold's this act of Faith to say nothing here of other principles which stedfastly fix it on Truth is an infinite Verity an Infinit Objective Certitude Contrarywise that which upholds an Assent given to the Being of Iamaica is only moral Certitude and may be fals For the Act ultimately resolved comes to no more but this Men say so Those are living that have feen the place letters are conveyed thither c. But all these proofs though most morally certain equalize not the Infallibility of an Assent that relies on an Infinite verity that can neither deceive nor be deceived 9. Perhaps you will say Though this Veracity of God be infinitly infallible in it self yet one may rely on it with an Act only Morally certain and you require no more for Faith I grant the case is possible but withall say such an Act is no Faith as is largely proved Disc 1. c. 5. and 6. because it is not ultimately resolvable into Gods infallible veracity as the last Motive to rest on but into some other inferiour Motive extrinsick and Distinct from Gods Revelation Put the case that three or four Learned Heathen Philosophers of good repute Assure one of their sect upon their Credit and humane Authority They cannot but judge all things considered that God hath revealed the Incarnation of the Divine word in Holy Scripture Admit also that the Hearer because he esteems them knowing upright and sincere yeilds his assent to that Revelation meerly for their Authority The Formal Object or Motive of his Assent is not if the supposition stand Divine Revelation for this is only yet the Material Object Believed upon humane Authority consequently it cannot be an Act of Faith For Faith as
Faith precisely rest's alwaies on Gods Revelation as the last and ultimate Motive without the mixture of any other See Disc 1. c. 5. n. 5. 6. as also Chap. 6. Now if you desire to know more concerning the certainty of him that Proposeth the Object of Faith darkly revealed in Holy Scripture read the 4. Chap. of the first Discours 10. By what is said hitherto you se Good Mr. Poole that true Christian Religion must either signify the Objective Infallibility of Gods Revelation or the Assent of Faith wherby we Captivate our understanding and submit to an Infallible Veracity both the one and other goe farr beyond the mean measure of meer Probabilities or the highest moral certainty Therfore your Instances of Iamaica and a Calf are here useles and insignificant I say True Christian Religion or to speak in your words The Truth of Christianity For if by the essential Truth of Christianity you will understand the prudent Motives or Inducements that precede Faith and shew us where True Christianity is professed and call these the Essentials of Christian Religion know first you have none of them as is proved Disc 1. C. 8. 9. and 10. Know secondly that these Motives previously pondered before we believe though most requisit to belief are not the Essentials of Faith whether you take Faith obiectively For the matter believed or subiectively for the Act of Belief But objects of Science as you may read in Chapters now Quoted For Faith which essentially constitutes Religion follows in every good Christian after the Consideration of these Motives and sub Notione fidei or as Divine Faith ultimately relies not on them 11. Vpon these Grounds all comes to nothing that you have P. 10. and 11. where you say If besides the Infallibility of the Thing there be required Certitudo subjecti the Infallibility of the person you will bring this fox out of his hole by a notable Dilemma A word only in passing Pray you Sir what 's here understood by the Infallibility of the Thing You either mean Gods certain Revelation and this certainly most infallibly is not to be called a Thing but ought to be spoken of with greater Reverence or you mean and your context bears no other sense the material Objects of our Christian belief now these solely considered can no more properly be called fallible or infallible then probable and improbable No man saith that a stone which he sees in the high way is either fallible or infallible probable or improbable The Reason is Because these Terms certain fallible infallible probable improbable c. note ever the tendency of vital Acts proceeding from an intellectual power And therfore most improperly belong to objects neither vital nor intellectual Thus much only by the Bye Now to your foxing it and fearful Dilemma Either say you a subjective certainty or infallibility of Belief mark your own words of the Truth of Christianity is necessary for particular Christians or it is not If it be not necessary then Papists too vainly boast of it and must Confess probable evidence sufficient for particular Christians and infallibility necessary only for the Pope and Councel if a subjective infallibility be necessary for particular Christians then every Papist in England hath a Pope in his belly c. Here is the substance of your Dilemma and it is a strange piece of confused Stuff Observe well You begin with the Subjective infallibility of the Belief of the Truth of Christianity and then run further then to Iamaica to talk of that which you call the probable evidence of it Good Sir the evidence of credibility belonging to true Christianity is totally distinct from the infallible belief of it That if we make a right Analysis precedes Faith Faith followes and is far more certain then the judgement is all have of the Evidence of Credibility See Disc 1. c. 7. 8. 9. 10. Briefly I say first The belief of true Christianity is subjectively infallible in every faithful Christian who therfore may have as sound Faith as the Pope himself or any that sitt's in Councel The Reason already given and further declared Disc 1. c. 1. is thus God an infinite Verity speaks to us for this end that we believe him He speaks infallibly Faithful Christians believe both what He speaks and answerably to their power as He speaks Ergo they believe infallibly Again A fallible Belief cannot be ultimately resolved into an infallible Revelation none therfore that holds himself obliged to Believe an infinit Verity owned as infallible can proceed doubtfully upon that Motive for he knowes An infinit Verity speak's not doubtfully or opinatively I say secondly Infallible Faith of the Truth of Christianity is miscalled if you style it probable Evidence it is not probable but certain because it relies on an infinit Verity It is not Evident but obscure because Argumentum non apparentium Thus much is undoubtedly true if we speak of the Assent of Divine Faith Now if when you talk of particular Papists haveing a Pope in their belly you grosly Imagin that every one can Define or Declare infallibly Christian Doctrin in order to the whole Church as the Pope and Councel Doe you fight with shadowes no Papist hold's such fooleries And by this you se the last strength of your weak Dilemma brought to nothing 12. You are also as unlucky in your next Assault where you Chalenge the whole Club of Jesuits to Answer solidly By the Grace of God you shall have an Answer that will make you silent hereafter Thus you go on Were the Popish opinion of the Churches infallibility true in it self certitudine Objecti so also is the Protestants opinion concerning the infallibility of Scripture true in it self and certitudine Objecti as the must desperate Papists Grant For they say the Scripture is Divine true and certain in it self but not quoad nos therfore hitherto there is no difference It is not worth the while to insist here upon a Catacresis or abuse of words or to say how incompossible these two termes combined together are in the Papist Opinion and certainty of the Object For Catholicks in Matters of Faith content not themselves with a bare opinion where there is certitudo Objecti or Gods certain Revelation duely proposed that exacts from them no Opinion but a sure Assent of Faith And so we say that the infallibility of the Church is a matter believed by us because God hath revealed it consequently it s no Opinion But Sir this is not what I ayme at We will hear you say all And come to the strength of the Difficulty If say you it be a sufficient foundation for a Romanist that He hath such probable evidence of this Doctrin of the Churches infallibility why should it not be as sufficient a fundation for a Protestant that He hath such nay infinitly more probable evidence of the Doctrin of the Scriptures infallibility Since the evidence of the later is granted by the Papists
clearnes Greatnes Majesty and Coherency of those Truths revealed in Scripture that they must certainly come from none but God Answ What will not men say at last who dare Propose such evident improbabilities Why the whole world agrees in this that the light comes from the sun for it is evident to our senses but do all unanimously agree about the very Canon of Scripture or the clearnes of those books all admit of which are evidently obscure in a hundred passages and so seemingly incoherent in many other places that it is mighty Difficile to reconcile them Again What more Greatnes or exteriour Majesty can any Discover in Salomons Proverbs then in the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus or in those two pious Hymns Te Deum and Gloria in Excelsis such arguments therfore are not only slight but improbable 20. They Object 2. The works of Creation Evidence Gods Wisdom Power and Greatnes Ergo God can give as great evidence of a Revelation Answ I grant He can do so But What then Doth it follow that He hath don it de facto by the words internal to Scripture which is here only to the purpose without the light of orher Motives as Miracles Conversions and the like which as I now said immediately manifest the Church and not the book of Scripture 21. They object 3. No other way is conceivable that it should be evident that a Doctrin comes from God and consequently is infallible but that it contains things highly suitable to the Divine nature things above the finding out of human reason things only tending to Advance Holines and Goodnes in the world And this Doctrin to be Delivered by persons who wrought Vnparrallel'd Miracles And They ask whether all these be not in the most evident manner Imaginable contained in the Doctrin of Christianity and in the books of Scripture I Answer first The Opponent is far from Conceiving any thing like a probability in this Objection For if it be evident that a Doctrin comes from God and therfore is infallible because it contains Things suitable to the Devine Nature the very Gentils without other Motives should as well see this Evidence as we se the light of the Sun Now if you say its an Evidence but not perceptible by all you runn into Darknes Destroy the Nature of Evidence and make it now evident now unevident when and to whom you please If again you say its an Evidence sufficient to breed Faith you beg the Question and speak improbably for nothing can beget Faith but what is owned for Gods infallible Word upon prudent Motives and the Testimony of some Infallible Oracle To confirm what is here said I Ask whether if Christ and his Apostles had appeared in the World and only preached the high Mysteries of our Faith as a Trinity the Incarnation Original sin with other Doctrins now registred in Scripture that advance Holines of life c. But all this without doing one Miracle Converting one Nation or shewing any the least wonder that they were sent from God to teach as they did My Question I say is whether upon this supposition either Jewes or Gentils would then have believed them or could have discovered an Infallibility in a Doctrin thus Orally Delivered or writ in patchment meerly by the force of the words If Sectaries say Yes They do not only speak a Paradox which no Christian ever uttered and make our Saviours Argument Against the Jewes Si opera c. If I had not don works amongst them which no other did they would not have sin null and inefficacious but moreover are convinced by this clear proof Suppose And it implies no impossibility that God who hath yet within the vast reach of His Omnisciency a Thousand other Verities unknown to the world and not at all revealed in Scripture or Delivered by the Church for certainly He hath not revealed all He knowes should now both inspire and Assist twelve poore Fishermen to preach infallibly these Truth never heard of before yet so that they Teach only but do no Miracles work no Conversions shew no wonders and give no other Testimony of their being sent from God but by their own bare word Would any men in the world think ye prudently believe them meerly for their preaching or would Sectaries as well Discover the Infallibility of these Verities taught by their preaching as they now Discern the Scriptures infallibility No the whole world would prudently set light by such Doctrin though in it self both Divine and Infallible for want of prudent Motives to make it evidently Credible and so all would have don had the Apostles only preached the Divine Truths already registred in Scripture without further Motives Therfore more is required to prove that a Doctrin comes from God then thus much only that it contains in it self things highly suitable to the Divine nature things above the finding out of humane reason and conduceing to piety I say in it self for if we goe to a strict Analysis of the Scriptures Verities we are not to suppose as the Opponent doth but to prove that all these Verities are suitable to the Divine nature which both Jewes and Gentils Do Deny And therfore must be further proved 22. Now if on the other side They grant and most truely that none would have Discovered any Infallibility in Apostolical Doctrin without further evidence of Miracles of signs and wonders we have our Intent For it followes inevitably that Scripture cannot be Discovered to be Divine by it self nor Infallble by vertue of any light contained in the words or Sintax therof It followes 2. that Mr. Stillingfleet is more then a little out in his seventh Interrogatory part 1. Chap. 7. p. 230. fine where He Ask's whether it be not the highest Disparagement of this Divine Doctrin to make it stand in need of an Infallible Testimony of any that call themselves the Catholick Church Good Sir reflect These Motives of Credibility manifested by Christ and his Apostles their Miracles Conversions Sanctity c. taken purely as Motives previous to the Faith of those who believed were either fallible or Infallible take whether side you will If Infallible you evidently see that most certain Doctrin stood without Disparagement so far in need of those Inducements that it would never have been believed without them as is already proved though most infallible in it self If you hold those previous Inducements to be only Fallible you must yet Grant that the belief of that Apostolical Doctrin stood still in need of them without any Disparagement Therfore much less doth the Testimony of an Infallible Church Evidenced by the like Motives Disparage it I say the Testimony of the Church Evidenced by clear Motives For as the learned Snares Observes 3. Par. Tom. 2. Disp 31. Sect. 2. n. Dicoâ—primo The very Miracles of Christ precisely and solely considered or separated from all other certain Principles would not have proved Him to be the eternal Son of God because
true Catholick Church which is ever assisted by the Holy Ghost can be tepugnant to any Superiour Rule and therfore touch not Catholicks in the least manner But if you speak of the Decisions of your English Church which because fallible may be repugnant you license your self by your own Principles to disobey it And look you to that You say 3. The judge is Constituted by God in the Church not for the Command of mens Consciences but for the regulation of their Actions and Preservation of peace in the Church which is not Violated by mens inward and unknown Sentiments but by their External demeanour and sensible Effects of them Answ Most pittiful Doctrin What is all the preaching of Sectaries Come to no more but only to teach how the Exteriour Actions of men are to be regulated and peace may be preserved This Truely more be longs to the Iustiâ—ies of Peace in their Several Districts then to Ministers if therfore they goe no deeper into Consciences by their Doctrin they certainly preach not the Word of God for I read Heb. 4. 12. the Word of God is lively and forcible and more persing then any two Edged Sword and reaching unto the Division of the soule and Spirit of the ioynts also and the Marrows c. And these men go no further then only to give instructions concerning the Exteriour Regulation of Actions or preserving of Peace If therfore their Hearers were very Hypocrits Iewes or Arians in hart and only demeaned themselves fairly in the Exteriour like Protestants Ministers are not to medle with them but leave them to their own Consciences without Check or reproof wherof se more Disc 3. C. 7. â— 17. 18. Now if Mr. Poole will find some Mystery in the words he useth Command of mens Consciences let him read S. Paul to Titus 2. 15. Haec loquere Speak these things and rebuke Cum omni Imperio with all Command and Authority And so Pastors should Speak to Consciences Cum Imperio in Gods cause and people should obey them The Apostle gives the reason Hebr. 13. 17. Obey your Prelates your Guides or Commanders for they watch as being to render an account for your Souls And if they must render an account of Souls they may certainly speak like Prelates to their very interiour Consciences 29. Page 41. you say the Scriptures of the old and now Testament are the Infallible rule and ground of Faith Answ They are so Faithfully interpreted Se Disc 2. C. 4. where you have your Errours Discovered and the Objection fully Answered You say again Vniversal Tradition rightly understood is of great use and like a channel wherby Scripture which alone is our rule is conveyed to us Answ the Parenthesis which alone is refuted in the Discours now cited the rest of your Assertion hath no hurt in it But you add a Mysterious piece of Divinity where you distinguish between Rem Tradiâ—am the thing Delivered Traditionem and the Tradition or Delivery of it and say Papists by Tradition understand the first that is res tradita Answ either I understand not you or you which is more likely misconceive the Doctrin of Catholicks For they distinguish between Tradition and the thing Delivered For example The Baptizing of Infants the keeping of Sunday in place of the Sabbath are Objectively Doctrins delivered and the Testimony Consent and Acknowledgment of the whole Universal Church witnessing these Verities are rightly called the formal Tradition therfore you mistake our Doctrin It is true as this word Faith sometimes signifies the matter revealed by Almighty God And most properly the internal Assent we yeild to the Revelation so this word Tradition may also signify either the Doctrin delivered or the formal Delivery of it but this makes not to your purpose You say again Tradition taken for the vehicle or conveyance of the books of Scripture is in some sort necessary to bring the Rule to you yet is no more a part of the Rule then a Basquet is Nourishment wherin bread is brought to feed on Here is your learned instance Believe it Sir if you take the Basket and find Nothing but a stone in it you will have a poore dinner And if you make Tradition minutely like the Basket in some sort necessary you may well have a stone for bread that is no Scripture given you for Scripture Tradition therfore whether part of the Rule or no is absolutely a necessary conveyance and must be Infallible 30. Page 44. you tell us Scripture is the Object only rule and standard of Faith by which all Controversies of Faith are to be decided and judged Answer The Proposition is only your own bare word Scripture alone can be no rule without an Infallible Interpreter as is proved Disc 2. c. 4. And had we no more to say but thus much that Scripture proves nor it self to be Infallible it were enough But grant which you yet Convince not that it is infallibly Gods Word an insuperable difficulty remains to be decided And it is whether you Sectaries know so exactly the sense of Scripture in all controverted matters that your fallible Glosses are to be stood to contrary to the judgement of a learned Ancient Church Hence I say you talk at random when page 48. you tell us There is enough delivered in Scripture by which all Controversies might be ended would men be humble studious and Self denying Lay your hand on your hart and speak your conscience can you judge this to be true Or can you perswade your self that none are to be found within the limits of this Ancient Church as humble as learned and studious as a few Ministers are in England Why vent you such Paradoxes without proof or so much as a probability You say again page 48. after some parergons of conditional and absolute power That if the Church be sufficient to end all Controversies because all must submit to its decrees and Doctrin the Scripture in like manner may be said to be sufficient because all are obliged to submit to the Decrees and Doctrin therof I Answer all are to do so when they know by an infallible Interpreter what the Scriptures Teaches but this in controverted matters is ever the difficulty You say it speak's one thing and we say the contrary therfore Scripture alone which is as silent now as it was Sixteene ages since is a less meet Meanes to end these Contentions Contrariwise the Church proposeth all shee teaches with the greatest clarity and if any doubt occurr is ready able and sufficient to declare it self further Scripture that hitherto never ended any difference between us cannot do so For a further satisfaction read the 5. Ch. of the 3. Discours 31. We return now to your 44. page where you tell us First Tradition is the Vehicle to conveigh the rule of Scripture to us 2. Reason is the instrument or Eye wherby you apprehend and se the Rule 3. The Spirit of God is the Eye-salve that annoints
your Eyes and inables you to see the Rule 4. The Church is the Interpreter but not infallible and Authentick the witness or guardian of this Rule Observe well We have here a number of words but Nothing proved Nothing so much as cleared Say therfore plainly What tradition is it that conveyed to you the books of Scripture Most surely it is the tradition of the Roman Catholick Church for you have no other If therfore you dare trust this Church in a matter of so weighly importance as to hand to you Gods Sacred Word you may as well and with as good Conscience believe what ever other Doctrin it Teaches by Tradition See Disc 2. C. 2. n. 4. 5. You talk secondly of Reason that see 's this Rule of Scripture and you certainly mean the true sense of it or you say nothing Now I would willingly learn how your Reason comes to have the priviledge or preheminence of knowing such Secrets before your elder Brethren the Papists or your more neerer Allies the Quaquers or the old Arians The like doubt I move about the Eye-salve that annoints your Eyes you call it the Spirit of God And I am sure there is no Donatist or Pelagian but will say as much of his contrary Spirit But above all Satisfy me in one doubt and plainly point me out the Church that interpret's Scripture as you do in all those matters of Controversy now between us I tell you Sir There was never any such Church in the world fallible or infallible that favours your glosses and interpretations of Scripture 32. Page 46. You have a Fling at the Captains Arguments against the judgement of Reason who if you relate truely for I have not now his Epistle by me saith first Reason must submit to the judge therfore it is not the judge You Answer It is not the supreme judge but subordinate and tyed to Rule Contra. Every judgement with you is fallible and may easily Swerve from the rule or mistake the supreme judges Sentence if it do so it is erroneous and not to be followed Say therfore who ties your judgement that is fallible and may be fals to any certain Rule This should be Answered 33. He Objects again The judge must be Infallible but reason is fallible Ergo. You Answer The Maior is a pittiful Petitio principij Contra. Your Reply is more pittiful Observe well All judgements you say are fallible and many are not only fallible but fals also Most surely you will not have us to follow any fals judgement and yet we must follow a fallible judgement Vouchsafe to tell us whose fallible judgement we are to trust to in these weighty matters of Controversy And I have all reason to be satisfied in the doubt because it avail's me Nothing to know that I must rely on a fallible judgement which may be fals Vnles you teach me whose fallible judgement it is I am to rely on For example When you interpret a passage of Scripture contrary to the Churches Sense your explication is fallible Answer therfore why will you rather have me to rest on your judgement that is fallible then on the Churches contrary sense though it were falsly Supposed fallible If you say All things considered your explication is more probable you are the very man that pittifully begg's the Question and speak's without any probable Principle 34. Now if wearied with those Interrogatories you say roundly and this must be answered in your Principle that every man is to follow his own judgement in these debated matters The Arian is to follow his private judgement the Socinian his the Quaquer his the Donatist his c. you do not only license all the Hereticks in the world to remain still in their Heresies But moreover Counsel them to believe Falsities for you know or should know that these private judgements are all fals If finally you Answer We must rest on a judgement that is True although it be fallible I know not what you mean for no man amongst you can assure me in these high points of Controversy when a judgement is to be reckoned of as true that is fallible because Truth is most easily separated from an Act that is really Falliâ—â— 35. In a word Sir your whole Mistake lies in this You sound not to the bottome the signification of these words The Iudgement of Reason For Reason in this place cannot be taken for a weak Discours or the private Sentiment of every erring man after He hath humm'd over or paus'd on Scripture the Arian or Socinian will make his Religion good this way but the Iudgement of Reason Goes further and ought to be deeply rational indeed that is It must rest at last upon a solid and satisfactory Principle which throughly pondered work 's powerfully upon every prudent disinteressed Vnderstanding and gently forceth the man that layes prejudice aside to acquiesce and yeild without fear or trouble The Catholick Church of Christ only most evidently proposeth these undoubted satisfactory Principles wheron a rational judgement doth rest securely when the Faith Shee holds is resolved No Sectary ever yet shewed nor shall hereafter show any think like a Satisfactory Principle to ground a rational judgement on when He believes contrary to this Church All he can do is to tell us what He thinks but you shall never learn from him upon any solid Principle extrinsecal to his own bosome thoughts That God speaks as He thinks But I have said so much of this Subiect Disc 1. c. 7. n. 4. 5. and Disc 2. c. 5. n. 8. 9. 10. that it is needles to add More 36. To the 3. Argument If Reason were judge a man might pleas God without Faith I know not whether you propose it fully enough you Answer this would overthrow the Church You are much deceived for the Church teaches that none â—an please God without Faith In your fourth Answer your are â—â—ing up again your Reason to a Law and Rule in things you understand not Sir if you understand not you want cords to tye fast withall and therfore may easily not close with the supreme judges sentence But of this we have said enough already You will find the substance of what followes in your Appendix refuted upon several occasions in the Treatise Had I more time I would say a word to your Glosses upon these two places of Scripture quoted by you In the first though S. Peter saith contrary 2. Pet. 3. 16. that Scripture is difficile to be understood you will have it easy unles it be to the ignorant and ungodly and 't is likely you suppose there are none of these ignorant or ungodly people among you Upon the other Text 2. Tim. 3. 15. 16. you seem to inferr from the Vtility of Scripture a sufficiency in order to Saluation which is as good an Inference as if you said Your head is profitable to make you to live therfore it is sufficient Or the Principles of Philosophy can instruct you
say 'T is the Church ought to be certain and infallible It seems enough say some that this Faith be taught upon a rational Evidence which Evidence finally resolved comes to no more but to a Moral certainty These as I am informed ground themselves on this Principle That all the Assurance we can have of Christian Religion hath for its whole Foundation moral Certainty only and it seems a prop firm enough to support it More it cannot have 6. The Objection contains two parts To the first I answer If Divine Faith be in the world Reason Divine Faith must have an infallibie Teacher convinceth that the object of it be propounded by a Certain and infallible Teacher and then most when Points fundamental lye under Dispute and are in controversy Faith therfore requires two things essentially to omit other Necessaries an Object which is Gods Revelation and a Proposition of this object made by some Teacher to Christians which Doctrin the Apostle ratifies Rom. 10. 15. How shall they hear without a Preacher By virtue of this Proposition whether we call it Cause or an Essential Condition the Elicite Act of Faith followes in a Believer and intellectually layes as it were hold both on Gods Revelation and the Thing revealed Observe now well Gods Revelation none doubts it is certain and infallible Divine Faith which resteth on this Motive and proceeds from Grace is also certain and infallible The only Difficulty remaining concerns this Proponent of Faiths Object and it is whether He that Directs me and endeavours rightly to settle my Faith upon Gods infallible Revelation do his work with assurance fallibly or infallibly 7. I say first Gods infallible Revelation avail's nothing in order to Faith unles Christians by their Faith lay hold on the Certainty therof or own it as infallible and the assured ground of their Assent The reason is Because God speaks infallibly to Christians for this End That his infallible Word may have influence into Faith and support in with Certainty If therefore this revealed Word be not Certainly Proposed as it is infallible if it be not duely applyed to a Believers understanding under its The object of Faith must be infallibly applyed own Notion of certainty that strength of infallibility lyes as it were dead without Operation and profits Belief no more then Food doth a Body into which it cannot enter The similitude is fit For as Food though apt to strengthen a Body is just as if it were not unles it be duely Applyed so Gods Certain Revelation though most Proportionate to strengthen a Soul in Faith yet in order to this Effect it looseth all Efficacy while a due Application of its infallibility is wanting 8. To illustrate more this necessary Truth I say secondly When a Revelation lyes darkly in Scripture as it often doth in High points of Controversy according to the measure or degrees of Certitude which the Proponent of Faith gives to the Revelation and saith God speaks thus An Assent answerably followes with like Certitude in the Hearer and not a stronger If therfore the Proponent only say Doubtfully I think God speak's as I preach but am not Certain Gods Revelation is received according as 't is propounded Doubtful also is the Assent given to this Preaching If he say What I teach is Probable The Assent can be no more but Probable If finally He truely say I teach Infallibly what is revealed the Assent Answers and is Infallible The reason is clear For as no Eye can see Colours in darknes before light makes them visible yea and according to the measure of light it see 's them so no Intellectual Eye can discover a dark Revelation before he borrow light from his Teacher and as The light is lesse or more so He see 's that object lesse or more perfectly A dubious and uncertain Proposal therfore made of a certain Revelation when it doth not Clearly manifest it self is like a glimmering light And neither doth nor can apply the Objective infallibility Therof with Assurance to mans intellectual Faculty which yet seek's after Certainty in matters of Belief This needs no proof For he who proposeth only Doubfully a Revelation which is Certain in it self both in actu signato and exercito saith no more but timidly thus much Perhaps I declare A timide proposal of Divine Revelation begets no more but a doubtfull Faith what God speak's and perhaps I do not For my Declaration only Doubfully guesses at the Certainty of the Revelation And it is against the nature of all Doubt to convey Certainty into any understanding As long therfote as the infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me For want of an undoubted Application made by an infallible Proponent it can no more transfuse Certainty into Faith then fire at a great distance warm That is no more Then if it were not Certain in it self or not at all in Being Whence I conclude That a certain Revelation if obscure in Scripture requires a Certain Proposition Because It little avail's me to know this truth That if God speak's he speak's infallibly unles hîc nunc in these circumstance when he speak's to me for my Saluation I yeild my certain Assent to the infallibility of his Word which cannot be done unles I have Assurance from my Teacher that he speak's as I ought to believe infallibly Upon these undeniable Principles I say thirdly Our Sectaries can have no Divine Faith Sectaries can do no more but doubtfully guesse at what they Believe and consequently as Protestants never yet had nor can have Divine certain and infallible Faith I prove the Assertion All Faith which hath no other Certitude then what is derived from Those who propound the object of it id est Gods Revelation uncertainly and doubtfully is no more but wavering Opinative and doubtful But the Faith of Protestants is evidently such Because no man or Society of men amongst them can without doubt and fear infallibly say God speak's as I preach and I infallibly preach as God speaks For if he averr thus much with Truth he Propound's the object of his Faith infallibly and therfore is so farre infallible If he do They cannot propose Faith infallibly not his preaching must be finally resolved into his own timid weak and wavering Opinion which weighed comes to no more but this Levity I hope well and think I preach what God hath infallibly Revealed yet am not certain because all I say for ought I know is fallible 9. If you will se this Truth farther Evidenced do no more but ask of any Protestant Why for example He believes that all the Churches on earth are fallible That Christ is only figuratively in the Eucharist That Faith only justifies That there are two Sacraments and no more c. His first refuge perhaps will be to Scripture But demand again Whether Scripture in plain and Express Terms Delivers these supposed Doctrins If he be not more then